Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1514733
| From | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) |
| Date | 2016-11-03 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <szu9F-6WS-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <szu9F-6WS-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Cc linux-kernel] Hello, On (11/02/16 10:06), Joe Perches wrote: > Hello all. > > Can you please post notes for whatever is proposed here somewhere? we covered 4 topics: #1 deadlocks and recursion in printk discussion outcome: I published an updated printk_safe patch last week (addresses recursion problems in printk). there was no strong opposition, and we agreed that per-cpu buffers can help us out. discussion outcome: we agreed that deadlocks in printk must be addressed via printk indirection. basically printk() will behave the same way as printk_deferred() and, thus, we can, at some point, remove printk_deferred(). #2 async printk discussion outcome: we agreed to offload printing duty to a special printk kthread. #3 pr_cont discussion outcome: out of "problems" list. no work will be done in this area. #4 console semaphore discussion outcome: we agreed that we can do better here and that it makes sense to do what's been proposed in my slides. but, I keep it as a low priority. frankly. I'd be happy to see #1-#3 in the mainline in 9-12 months. not because it's such an enormesoly hard thing to do, but because we probably would want to introduce those changes iteratively, in different releases. p.s. I uploaded "some sort" of slides to http://www.slideshare.net/SergeySENOZHATSKY/printk-considered-harmful -ss
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 18:40 +0100
Re: printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 19:10 +0100
Re: printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-11-04 05:50 +0100
Re: printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 17:10 +0100
csiph-web