On Wed 2017-04-12 01:19:53, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (04/11/17 10:46), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (04/10/17 20:48), Pavel Machek wrote: > > [..] > > > > but, once again, I see your point. > > > > > > Good. Does that mean that the next version of patches will work ok in > > > that case? > > > > yes. > > ok... so I'm looking at something like below right now. > not really tested yet. > > I put some comments into the code. > > it does offloading after X printed lines by the same process. > if we reschedule, then the counter resets. which is probably OK, > we don't really want any process, except for printk_kthread, to > stay in console_unlock() forever. "number of lines printed" is > probably easier to understand (easily converted to the number of > pageup/pagedown you need to press, terminal buffer history size, > etc.) than seconds we spent on printing (which doesn't even > correspond to messages' timestamps in general case).
Design looks good to me... certainly better than previous version :-).
> when the limit of "number of lines printed" is 0, then no
> offloading takes place.
And with "number of lines printed" set to 999999, it will get us
previous behaviour, right?
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
