From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2][RFC] let RCU stall messages escape with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:08:54 -0800 Message-ID: <50C63346.8000802@am.sony.com> References: <50BED1DA.7070907@am.sony.com> <50BED305.9090308@am.sony.com> <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "dipankar@in.ibm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" To: "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" Return-path: Received: from va3ehsobe010.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.30]:34467 "EHLO va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751595Ab2LJTJB (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:09:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/10/12 06:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:52:21PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> The printk()s in RCU stall warnings do not get flushed to the console >> on ARM. Add the oops_in_progress flag back into the special trylock case in >> console_trylock_for_printk(), and set the flag using "bust_spinlocks(1)". >> This allows the printk() output to be flushed to the console. >> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > > Is bust_spinlocks(1) appropriate for all architectures, or should this > be conditioned on architectures that need oops_in_progress to be set? > > Thanx, Paul Good question. I don't know if the architectures that do not set oops_in_progress do not need it, or if they just overlooked it. I'll have to look a little bit deeper. -Frank From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: frank.rowand@am.sony.com (Frank Rowand) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:08:54 -0800 Subject: [PATCH RT 2/2][RFC] let RCU stall messages escape with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL In-Reply-To: <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <50BED1DA.7070907@am.sony.com> <50BED305.9090308@am.sony.com> <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <50C63346.8000802@am.sony.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/10/12 06:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:52:21PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> The printk()s in RCU stall warnings do not get flushed to the console >> on ARM. Add the oops_in_progress flag back into the special trylock case in >> console_trylock_for_printk(), and set the flag using "bust_spinlocks(1)". >> This allows the printk() output to be flushed to the console. >> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > > Is bust_spinlocks(1) appropriate for all architectures, or should this > be conditioned on architectures that need oops_in_progress to be set? > > Thanx, Paul Good question. I don't know if the architectures that do not set oops_in_progress do not need it, or if they just overlooked it. I'll have to look a little bit deeper. -Frank