Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk_deferred

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > >   printk_deffered() will be in order with other printks after your commit
> > > 458df9fd4815b47809875d57f42e16401674b621. Just printing to console itself
> > > will be delayed to the next timer interrupt. Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Hehe, you're right. I blame the meds for forgetting this.
> > 
> > Yeah, my update will put the data in order. Thus I guess I agree with
> > your assessment. We probably don't need the "sched_delayed" anymore.
> > 
> > OK, you convinced me, but I still like to hear Peter's view on this
> > before we commit it.
> 
> By not calling console_unlock() the messages will be 'delayed', as in,
> we'll not call console->write() and we'll not see them, etc..
> 
> So some form of [delayed] or whatnot seems to remain appropriate.
> 
> I agree that the 'sched_' part has lived far beyond its relevance.

But then we should add '[delayed]' if a CPU calls printk() while
another CPU is printing, as printk() wont block in that case either,
and the output will happen some later time.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/