[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230427005525.GF1496740@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 09:55:25 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: use seq_buf_do_printk() with
mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo()
On (23/04/26 17:24), Michal Hocko wrote:
> No objection from me but is it possible that more printk calls (one per
> line with this change correct?) would add a contention on the printk
> path?
It probably will have opposite effect: console->write of longer lines
keep local IRQs disabled longer and keep console_waiter printk spinning
(in console_trylock_spinning()) longer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists