From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755709AbaIQOXG (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:23:06 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.226]:37837 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755400AbaIQOXF (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:23:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:22:55 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jan Kara , Markus Trippelsdorf , Geert Uytterhoeven , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for printk_deferred Message-ID: <20140917102255.5cd03071@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20140917141816.GO2840@worktop.localdomain> References: <20140914055450.GB296@x4> <20140915163740.GA12408@x4> <20140916105547.GA1205@quack.suse.cz> <20140916144252.GB32118@x4> <20140916111331.14303381@gandalf.local.home> <20140916203510.GF1205@quack.suse.cz> <20140916170709.73ef2993@gandalf.local.home> <20140916212250.GI1205@quack.suse.cz> <20140916173328.6306a5c2@gandalf.local.home> <20140917141816.GO2840@worktop.localdomain> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200 Peter Zijlstra 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