From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757861Ab2LHPC6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2012 10:02:58 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:37976 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755162Ab2LHPC5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2012 10:02:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:02:52 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Paul Gortmaker , Anish Kumar , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] printk: Make it usable on nohz cpus Message-ID: <20121208150252.GI12011@gmail.com> References: <1353200692-6039-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1353200692-6039-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Ingo, > > Please pull the printk support in dynticks mode patches that can > be found at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git tags/printk-dynticks-for-mingo-v2 > > for you to fetch changes up to 74876a98a87a115254b3a66a14b27320b7f0acaa: > > printk: Wake up klogd using irq_work (2012-11-18 01:01:49 +0100) > > It is based on v3.7-rc4. > > Changes since previous pull request include support for irq > work flush on CPU offlining and acks from Steve. The rest > hasn't changed except some comment fix. Since this changes kernel/printk.c it needs Linus's ack. I looked through the older submissions but found no good summary of these changes: it would be nice if you could write up a good high level description of these changes - why has printk based kernel message logging become problematic on nohz, what are the symptoms to users, and what are the solution alternatives you found and please justify the irq_work extension variant you picked. I more or less accept the fact that fixes are needed here, but the linecount appears a bit high. It's possibly unavoidable, but would be nice to have a discussion of it, as printk is something we really, really want to keep as simple as possible. Thanks, Ingo