From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161450AbWBUJQh (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:16:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161451AbWBUJQh (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:16:37 -0500 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:47007 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161450AbWBUJQg (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:16:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:16:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20060221.011650.120896368.davem@davemloft.net> To: mingo@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: softlockup interaction with slow consoles From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: <20060220.131847.25386315.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Ingo Molnar Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:09:58 -0500 (EST) > i changed soft lockup detection to be turned off during bootup. That > should work around any boot-time warnings. Excellent. > (if this can happen on a booted up system then the real fix would indeed > be to split up register_console()'s workload - that would also make it > more preemption-friendly. But at first sight it looks quite complex to > do.) Agreed. I thought about buffering in the slow console driver itself but that's bad because if it's a crash message we might not get the events (interrupts, or whatever) in order to make forward progress printing out the buffer, and thus we'd lose the valuable messages.