On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:52:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 09:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:11:30AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: > > > The WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE with rq lock held in __schedule() should be > > > deferred by marking the PRINTK_DEFERRED_CONTEXT_MASK, or will cause > > > deadlock on rq lock in the printk path. > [] > > NAK printk_deferred is an abomination, kill that. > > Didn't you introduce it? > Should you be complaining to yourself?
Yeah. I should've hacked around it then I suppose. Still, no reason to proliferate that crap. Afaik the new printk should be able to deal with this at some point. The thing we're not going to do it add a cache-miss to schedule just because.
