On Fri 2016-09-02 16:58:08, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/01/16 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-08-31 21:52:24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > a console_unlock() doing
> > > wake_up_process(printk_kthread) would make it better.
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by this.
>
> I meant that this thing
>
> local_irq_save() // or preempt_disable()
> ...
> if (console_trylock())
> console_unlock();
> ...
> local_irq_restore() // or preempt_enable()
I see.
> can easily lockup the system if console_trylock() was successful and there
> are enough messages to print. printk_kthread can't help, because here we
> basically enforce the `old' behavior. we have async printk, but not async
> console output. tweaking console_unlock() to offload the actual printing loop
> to printk_kthread would make the entire console output async:
>
> static void console_sync_flush_and_unlock(void)
> {
> for (;;) {
> ...
> call_console_drivers();
> ...
> }
> }
>
> void console_unlock(void)
> {
> if (!MOTORMOUTH && can_printk_async()) {
> up();
> wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> return;
> }
> console_sync_flush_and_unlock();
> }
Something like this would make sense. But I would do it in a separate
patch(set). We need to go through all console_unlock() callers and
make sure that they are fine with the potential async behavior.
I would not complicate the async printk patchset by this.
Best Regards,
Petr
