Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:12:38 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: IRQ off latency of printk is very high |
| |
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > It might help to read this thread I posted on LKML in January 2006 > > explaining the problem, which led to some discussion about the issue. > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/3/48 > > This is very helpful. Jon Smirl's answer seems to give the > rationale for supporting printk output in interrupt context. > I'm not sure, however, if extending the interrupt off period > to cover the console output is required. It didn't until > Ingo changed it in 2.6.17.
Hmm, I see this at the beginning of the post-BK era (2.6.12-rc2):
spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags); ... spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); call_console_drivers(_con_start, _log_end); local_irq_restore(flags);
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |