From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
"Qixuan.Wu" <qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel-owner <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
"chenggang.qin" <chenggang.qin@linux.alibaba.com>,
caijingxian <caijingxian@linux.alibaba.com>,
"yuanliang.wyl" <yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Would you help to tell why async printk solution was not taken to upstream kernel ?
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:10:49 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180306081049.GH6713@jagdpanzerIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305221644.6946fa99@gandalf.local.home>
On (03/05/18 22:16), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Yes. My point was that "CPU can print one full buffer max" is not
> > guaranteed and not exactly true. There are ways for CPUs to break
> > that O(logbuf) boundary.
>
> Yes, when printk or the consoles have a bug, it can be greater than
> O(logbuf).
OK. Now the question is - what is "a bug" in this case? Are those
printk-s really a bug? Consoles are very complex, with dependencies
on timers, networking, etc. having them appending more messages to
the logbuf is not very cool, but at the time the kernel does not
BUG_ON(), nor panic(); it moves on. It's printk()->console_unlock()
that turns it into lockup->panic(). Is the bug really in the consoles
then?
-ss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-06 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1eb584e2-a479-46dd-8a25-820da7a34e85.qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com>
2018-03-04 13:01 ` Would you help to tell why async printk solution was not taken to upstream kernel ? Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-04 15:08 ` Qixuan.Wu
2018-03-04 15:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-05 2:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-05 20:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 2:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 2:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 2:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 3:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 8:10 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2018-03-05 20:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 1:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 2:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 3:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-05 6:56 ` Qixuan.Wu
2018-03-05 13:29 ` Petr Mladek
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=20180306081049.GH6713@jagdpanzerIV \
--to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=caijingxian@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=chenggang.qin@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.com \
/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