On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:09:58PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello Peter, > > thanks for taking a look. > > On (03/22/17 18:59), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:45:50PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > sysrq is potentially even trickier. can we always wake_up() kernel > > > thread from sysrq? there probably might be cases when we can't rely > > > on the scheduler. > > > > sysrq runs from interrupt context, right? Should be able to do wakeups. > > what I though about was - > what if there are 'misbehaving' higher prio tasks all the time? > the existing sysrq would attempt to do printing from irq context > so it doesn't care about run queues. > > does it make sense to you?
Ah, that's what you meant. Yeah, dunno, I'm still unconvinced about the whole printk thread thing. Also those function names are horrifically long.
