Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:28:31 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: IRQ off latency of printk is very high |
| |
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:57:18PM +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote: > >>>>> "MM" == Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> writes: > > MM> Well there are things we can do, yes, but I'd be worried that > MM> they've give up the deterministic behavior we rely on quite > MM> heavily for debugging. If event A happens before event B, we must > MM> see the message from A before the one from B, even if B happens in > MM> irq context. > > MM> And if event B is a hard lock up, we'd also like to be sure the > MM> message for A actually gets out. If B happens in the interrupt > MM> that comes in when we re-enable them, that won't happen. > > I can see the concerns, but right now it all leads to disabling serial > console for real-time servers. That is even less helpful for > debugging.
That's not clear. No data is often better than false or misleading data.
-- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |