From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751786Ab2LJTJE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:09:04 -0500 Received: from va3ehsobe010.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.30]:34467 "EHLO va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751595Ab2LJTJB (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:09:01 -0500 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:160.33.194.231;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:usculsndmail04v.am.sony.com;RD:mail04.sonyusa.com;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -3 X-BigFish: VPS-3(zzbb2dI98dI1432Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bhz2fh2a8h668h839h947hd25hf0ah10d2h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h1765h1155h) Message-ID: <50C63346.8000802@am.sony.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:08:54 -0800 From: Frank Rowand Reply-To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "dipankar@in.ibm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2][RFC] let RCU stall messages escape with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL References: <50BED1DA.7070907@am.sony.com> <50BED305.9090308@am.sony.com> <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20121210142914.GP2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginatorOrg: am.sony.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/12 06:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:52:21PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> The printk()s in RCU stall warnings do not get flushed to the console >> on ARM. Add the oops_in_progress flag back into the special trylock case in >> console_trylock_for_printk(), and set the flag using "bust_spinlocks(1)". >> This allows the printk() output to be flushed to the console. >> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > > Is bust_spinlocks(1) appropriate for all architectures, or should this > be conditioned on architectures that need oops_in_progress to be set? > > Thanx, Paul Good question. I don't know if the architectures that do not set oops_in_progress do not need it, or if they just overlooked it. I'll have to look a little bit deeper. -Frank