* Pavel Machek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi! > > > > > It seems draconian to drain the entire buffer with ints disabled. > > > > Is it possible to break this up and send out smaller chunks > > > > at a time? Maybe by putting a chunk loop in release_console_sem()? > > > > > > Well, I believe someone got > > > > > > DDetetccctted ed 113223 HHzz CPUCPU > > > > > > in his dmesg, and now we have this 'draconian' locking. How can we > > > prevent mangled messages without it? > > > > The main interest seems to be to protect from mixed printk output > > between different CPUs in process context. I don't think it would be > > that bad if interrupts come and output error messages in the middle of a > > printk, isn't it ? > > > > therefore, could we do something like : > > > > > > if (!in_irq()) > > spin_lock(&logbuf_lock); > > ... > > if (!in_irq()) > > spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); > > > > ? (yes, this is a crazy idea) > > Two messages in atomic sections on different cpus could still be mixed > :-). But yes, something like this may be the way to go.
Not in "preempt disable" sections though. Only in interrupt handlers. But yes, I assume here that messages coming from interrupt handlers can afford being interleaved. Mathieu > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 - 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/
