From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk_deferred
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 17:47:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140920154733.GM2832@worktop.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140920051224.GA5573@quack.suse.cz>
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 07:12:24AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 18-09-14 19:34:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:31:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > I totally didn't get what you wrote.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > > We don't want to know if it got delayed, then the patch to remove that
> > > print seems correct.
> >
> > Why would you not want to know that? Also was that the actual argument?
> > Lemme go check the earlier emails -- I cannot find that argument in the
> > first few emails.
> Well, so what gets delayed is printing from kernel buffer to console.
> So this is the same as when you do printk() when console lock is taken by
> someone else. So it seems a bit strange to prepend [delayed] in some cases
> and not in others.
The difference is that when someone else has the console lock, he
guarantees it gets out. Whereas with the delayed thing it can take a
virtual forever to get out.
> Another question is what the [delayed] prefix would be useful for? If the
> message eventually gets printed to console I don't see why you would care
> it was printed few ms after it entered the kernel buffer (after all the
> time stamp before the line will be the time when it entered the kernel
> buffer). And if the kernel crashes in such a way that the message doesn't
> get printed, then bad luck but prefix in the kernel log buffer isn't going
> to make that any better :)
>
> This all feels like bikeshedding, I don't deeply care what gets done but I
> wanted to point out I don't really see a use for [delayed]...
Sure, I was just pointing out that those arguments had not been made. I
think you're right, if you see the msg it obviously made it out. If you
don't see it, you don't know either way.
But a patch removing it _must_ make those arguments, it did not.
On a whole, printk() is entirely useless for debugging these days, its
far too fragile/unreliable to be taken seriously so I really don't care
on that point either.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-20 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-14 5:09 Weird character in kernel message Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-14 5:54 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-14 9:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-15 16:37 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-16 10:55 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-16 14:42 ` [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk_deferred Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-16 15:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-16 15:20 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-16 19:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-16 19:17 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-16 20:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-16 20:35 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-16 21:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-16 21:22 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-16 21:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-17 14:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-17 14:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-17 22:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-18 0:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-18 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-20 5:12 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-20 15:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-20 16:34 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-20 15:47 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-09-20 16:10 ` Joe Perches
2014-09-20 16:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-09-20 18:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-20 18:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-24 11:01 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-24 11:11 ` [PATCH v2] " Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-24 11:26 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-24 11:37 ` [PATCH v3] " Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-24 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-09-24 15:20 [PATCH] " Markus Trippelsdorf
2014-09-24 15:35 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20140920154733.GM2832@worktop.localdomain \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markus@trippelsdorf.de \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox