Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:22:55PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Can you please chime in? Would you be opposed to offloading to an > > independent context even if it were only for cases where we were > > already punting? The thing with the current offloading is that we > > don't know

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:22:55PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Can you please chime in? Would you be opposed to offloading to an > > independent context even if it were only for cases where we were > > already punting? The thing with the current offloading is that we > > don't know

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Peter. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 07:21:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:02:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > 2. System runs out of memory, OOM triggers. > > 3. OOM handler is printing out OOM debug info. > > 4. While trying to emit the messages for netconsole,

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Peter. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 07:21:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:02:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > 2. System runs out of memory, OOM triggers. > > 3. OOM handler is printing out OOM debug info. > > 4. While trying to emit the messages for netconsole,

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:02:23 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Linus, Andrew. > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Where is the acceptable compromise? I am not sure. So far, the most > > forceful people (Linus) did not see softlockups as a big

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:02:23 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Linus, Andrew. > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Where is the acceptable compromise? I am not sure. So far, the most > > forceful people (Linus) did not see softlockups as a big problem. > > They

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:02:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > 2. System runs out of memory, OOM triggers. > 3. OOM handler is printing out OOM debug info. > 4. While trying to emit the messages for netconsole, the network stack >/ driver tries to allocate memory and then fail, which in turn >

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:02:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > 2. System runs out of memory, OOM triggers. > 3. OOM handler is printing out OOM debug info. > 4. While trying to emit the messages for netconsole, the network stack >/ driver tries to allocate memory and then fail, which in turn >

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:12:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Steven. > > So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to > do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has > been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. > > On Wed, Jan

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:12:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Steven. > > So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to > do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has > been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. > > On Wed, Jan

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Steven. So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > You on the other

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Steven. So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > You on the other

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:05:47 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > > to keep the code

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:05:47 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > > to keep the code maintenable. > > >

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Linus, Andrew. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > Where is the acceptable compromise? I am not sure. So far, the most > forceful people (Linus) did not see softlockups as a big problem. > They rather wanted to see the messages. Can you please chime in? Would

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Linus, Andrew. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > Where is the acceptable compromise? I am not sure. So far, the most > forceful people (Linus) did not see softlockups as a big problem. > They rather wanted to see the messages. Can you please chime in? Would

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed 2018-01-10 06:05:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > > to keep the code maintenable. > > > > The

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed 2018-01-10 06:05:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > > to keep the code maintenable. > > > > The

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > to keep the code maintenable. > > The handshake really works. It happens about 10-times even

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. > Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed > to keep the code maintenable. > > The handshake really works. It happens about 10-times even

[PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed to keep the code maintenable. The handshake really works. It happens about 10-times even during boot of a simple system in qemu with a fast console here. It is

[PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

This is the last version of Steven's console owner/waiter logic. Plus my proposal to hide it into 3 helper functions. It is supposed to keep the code maintenable. The handshake really works. It happens about 10-times even during boot of a simple system in qemu with a fast console here. It is

<    1   2   3