From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:57:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20160714215721.GD3057@ubuntu> References: <20160706182842.GS2671@ubuntu> <20160711102603.GI12410@quack2.suse.cz> <20160711154438.GA528@swordfish> <20160711223501.GI4695@ubuntu> <20160712231903.GR4695@ubuntu> <20160713054507.GA563@swordfish> <20160713153910.GY4695@ubuntu> <20160714005524.GA517@swordfish> <20160714013215.GB517@swordfish> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160714013215.GB517@swordfish> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jan Kara , Sergey Senozhatsky , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Tejun Heo , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , vlevenetz@mm-sol.com, Vaibhav Hiremath , Alex Elder , johan@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , Linux PM , Petr Mladek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 14-07-16, 10:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > it wouldn't really, this silly question was not directly related to the > deadlock we are discussing here but to Viresh's argument that later stages > of suspending/hibernation seem to printk many messages in sync mode. so I > thought that there might be a small benefit in suspending consoles later, > as far as I understand, Viresh has `no_console_suspend' anyway. other That option is enabled only for testing though :) > than that, I tend to stick to the approach of switching to sync mode from > suspend_console(). I actually need to test it out as well :) -- viresh