From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:38:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323855488.28489.16.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxNWiRQ1CkifhgcnnBqBa-xRNdM9Ze6bnxhsYd4ZYPg6A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 15:52 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've been poking at reducing the constraints on printk(), like make it
> > work under rq->lock etc..
>
> You aren't supposed register a console that wakes things up. But the
> only console that honors that afaik is the traditional vt console.
> *Maybe* the network console, I didn't check.
>
> I *assume* you only get this lockdep warning if you have a serial console?
I only ever use serial, I'll try and have a go at reproducing any of
this on a machine that actually has a screen attached.
Anyway, would it make any sense to start enforcing this 'rule'? Can we
reasonably make the serial stuff not wake things? Let alone the
fbdev/ksm consoles that seem popular these days.
Thing is, if everybody and their dog are using ksm, and we cannot make
ksm console wake-free, there's a very limited point to my endeavor to
make printk() work under rq->lock etc..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-14 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-13 19:33 printk() vs tty_io Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-13 23:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-14 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-12-14 10:43 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-14 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 14:05 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-12-14 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 15:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-15 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-15 10:32 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-15 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-15 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-15 18:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-15 21:22 ` Alan Cox
2011-12-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-15 19:02 ` Greg KH
2011-12-14 6:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-14 9:40 ` [PATCH] arch, early_printk: Consolidate early_printk() implementations Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:41 ` [PATCH] lockdep: Enable earlyprintk output Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:43 ` printk() vs tty_io Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-14 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 12:03 ` Stijn Devriendt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1323855488.28489.16.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.