From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Luo Jiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com>,
sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com,
bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: stop spining waiter when console resume to flush prb
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:32:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871raeop5q.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJkIK9cyHr46UAFP@alley>
On 2021-05-10, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> The current plan is to move console work to kthreads (separate
> preemptive context). Using IRQ is a complete opposite way.
>
> There is always the fight between getting the messages out as soon
> as possible and the risk of breaking the system (softlockups,
> deadlocks).
>
> The kthread approach reduces the risk of system breakage to a bare
> minimum. The price is that some messages might never reach console.
> There is finally a consensus to give it a try. If it fails, we might
> start looking for alternatives again.
+1
I think it is clear that any such fixups will disappear once
atomic-consoles and console printing kthreads arrive. That doesn't mean
we should ignore the fixups. We just need to decide if it is a real
problem that needs our immediate attention, thus warranting a fixup in
the current implementation.
I can see the suspend/resume issue might be a real problem. If this
should be addressed now, I would support Petr's patch, forcing the
backlog to be printed in the preemptible resuming context. But let's
just keep it a suspend/resume fixup. I do not think we want to start
playing with how console_unlock() behaves.
John Ogness
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-10 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-06 8:00 [PATCH] printk: stop spining waiter when console resume to flush prb Luo Jiaxing
2021-05-06 13:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-05-07 8:35 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-06 13:39 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-06 14:07 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-06 14:12 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-06 15:14 ` John Ogness
2021-05-07 7:58 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-07 7:33 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-07 7:49 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-07 16:36 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-10 8:26 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-10 10:17 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-10 10:32 ` John Ogness [this message]
2021-05-10 11:16 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-10 11:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-07 16:13 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-10 8:29 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-10 9:50 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-10 12:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-05-10 7:41 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-10 9:30 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-11 7:32 ` luojiaxing
2021-05-11 9:08 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-13 7:55 ` luojiaxing
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=871raeop5q.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=luojiaxing@huawei.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.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