lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:15:47 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> How about I use the lockdep infrastructure to check if printk() is
> invoked whole holding either xtime or rq lock, and then avoid calling
> wake_up_klogd(). That way, we at least get sane debug output when the
> lock debugging infrastructure is enabled?

The core problem seems to be that printk shouldn't be calling wake_up().
Can we fix that?

I expect it would be acceptable to do it from the timer interrupt instead.
For NOHZ kernels a poll when we enter the idle loop would also be needed.

But does that cover everything? Is it possible for a CPU to run 100% busy
while not receiving timer interrupts? I guess so. To receive no
interrupts at all? Also possible.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-24 20:01    [W:0.136 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site