On (06/01/18 11:09), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > So I'd say that most likely the following scenarios can suffer:
> > >
> > > - NMI comes in, sets loglevel to X, printk-s some data, restores the
> > > loglevel back to Y
> > > - IRQ comes in [like sysrq, etc] comes in and does the same
Hello,
On (06/01/18 14:12), Vaneet Narang wrote:
> > CPU0CPU1
> >
> > set console verbose
> >
> > dump_backtrace()
> > {
> > // for (;;) print frames
> > printk("%pS\n", frame0);
> > printk("%pS\n", frame1);
> > printk("%pS\n", frame2);
> > printk("%pS\n", frame3)
On (06/01/18 10:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>
> > So I'd say that most likely the following scenarios can suffer:
> >
> > - NMI comes in, sets loglevel to X, printk-s some data, restores the
> > loglevel back to Y
> > - IRQ comes in [like sysrq, etc] comes in and does the same thing
> > - s
On Fri 2018-06-01 10:53:56, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2018-06-01 13:40:50, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (05/31/18 14:21), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Upstream printk has no printing kthread. And we also run
> > > > printk()->console_unlock() with disabled preemption.
> > >
> > > Yes,
On Fri 2018-06-01 13:40:50, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/31/18 14:21), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >
> > > Upstream printk has no printing kthread. And we also run
> > > printk()->console_unlock() with disabled preemption.
> >
> > Yes, the comment was wrong
>
> Yes, that was the only thing I me
Hi Sergey,
>> but the problem is real.
>
>Yep, could be. But not exactly the way it is described in the commit
>messages and the patch does not fully address the problem.
>
>The patch assumes that all those events happen sequentially. While
>in reality they can happen in parallel on different CPUs
On (05/31/18 14:21), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Upstream printk has no printing kthread. And we also run
> > printk()->console_unlock() with disabled preemption.
>
> Yes, the comment was wrong
Yes, that was the only thing I meant.
I really didn't have any time to look at the patch yesterday, jus
On Thu 2018-05-31 15:49:11, Maninder Singh wrote:
> This patch make sure printing of log if loglevel at time of storing
> log is greater than current console loglevel.
>
> @why
> In case of async printk, printk thread can miss logs because it checks
> current log level at time of console_unlock.
>
On Thu 2018-05-31 19:52:15, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/31/18 15:49), Maninder Singh wrote:
> >
> > This patch make sure printing of log if loglevel at time of storing
> > log is greater than current console loglevel.
> >
> > @why
> > In case of async printk, printk thread can miss logs be
On (05/31/18 15:49), Maninder Singh wrote:
>
> This patch make sure printing of log if loglevel at time of storing
> log is greater than current console loglevel.
>
> @why
> In case of async printk, printk thread can miss logs because it checks
> current log level at time of console_unlock.
Upst
This patch make sure printing of log if loglevel at time of storing
log is greater than current console loglevel.
@why
In case of async printk, printk thread can miss logs because it checks
current log level at time of console_unlock.
func()
{
console_verbose(); // user wants t
11 matches
Mail list logo
