From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755867AbbJIMop (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:44:45 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60262 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755807AbbJIMoo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:44:44 -0400
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>, Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic: release stale console lock to always get the logbuf printed out
References: <1444237342-13282-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com>
	<20151007153408.5c66b7468dee3b2dac16930b@linux-foundation.org>
	<20151008090153.GB13232@quack.suse.cz>
	<87612hfziq.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
	<20151008135611.1f8deadff8690df168daaedc@linux-foundation.org>
	<87wpuwqrnb.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:44:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87wpuwqrnb.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (Vitaly Kuznetsov's message
	of "Fri, 09 Oct 2015 12:10:16 +0200")
Message-ID: <874mi0us7c.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> writes:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:03:25 +0200 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > If we picked up patch "kernel: Avoid softlockups in
>>> > stop_machine() during heavy printing" from my series (it's completely
>>> > independent, I've attached the latest version), the result would look less
>>> > hacky to me (attached). Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Haven't tested it but should also work...
>>
>> Well, I expect we'll be merging Jan's lockup-avoidance code fairly
>> soon.  There's no point in solving the same problem twice.
>>
>> Sp please, do take a closer look at the proposed patches and if
>> possible, runtime test them?
>
> Sure, I'll take a look.

Jan,

I've just tested patches you suggested and it seems they also solve the
issue I observe. Feel free to add:

Tested-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>

Thanks!

-- 
  Vitaly