From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752994AbcCVGtZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 02:49:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51190 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751399AbcCVGtY (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 02:49:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 07:49:48 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Petr Mladek , Tejun Heo , Tetsuo Handa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Byungchul Park , Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v6 0/2] printk: Make printk() completely async Message-ID: <20160322064948.GA4459@quack.suse.cz> References: <1458581130-8677-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1458581130-8677-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue 22-03-16 02:25:28, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > The patch set is based on slightly updated Jan Kara's patches. > > This patch set makes printk() completely asynchronous: new messages > are getting upended to the kernel printk buffer, but instead of 'direct' > printing the actual print job is performed by a dedicated kthread. > This has the advantage that printing always happens from a schedulable > context and thus we don't lockup any particular CPU or even interrupts. > > The patch set is against next-20160321 > > the series in total has 3 patches: > - printk: Make printk() completely async > - printk: Make wake_up_klogd_work_func() async > - printk: make console_unlock() async > > per discussion, "printk: make console_unlock() async" will be posted > later on. Patches look good to me. I don't think you need to mention the console_unlock() async patch when it is not part of the series. BTW, you seemed to have dropped my patch to skip if there are too many buffered messages when oops is in progress. Any reason for that? Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR