On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:18:16 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
