From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755194AbdKBMpu (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:45:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49269 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754143AbdKBMpt (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:45:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:45:47 +0100 From: Petr Mladek To: Joe Perches Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sergey Senozhatsky , LKML Subject: Re: printk discussions at KS Message-ID: <20171102124547.GC31148@pathway.suse.cz> References: <1509588743.31043.71.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1509588743.31043.71.camel@perches.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 On Wed 2017-11-01 19:12:23, Joe Perches wrote: > As I was not there, and I know about as much as anyone > about printk internals, can you please post a recap of > what was discussed, technical and other, about printk > improvements at the kernel-summit? > > If there was a pdf/powerpoint, that'd be nice to post too. There is a nice summary of the discussion at https://lwn.net/Articles/737822/ In short, it is the old problem with possible soft-lockups. There were send many variants of a solution based on offloading and kthreads. We discussed yet another solution proposed by Steven. Best Regards, Petr