On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:21:51 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok I see now. > > But then this irq_work based solution won't work if, say, you run in full > dynticks > mode. Also the hook on the timer interrupt is something that I wish we get rid > of on archs that can trigger self-IPIs.
Do we really want that? What about users that use LAZY? That is, the work isn't that important to trigger right now (added interrupt expense). > > Notwithstanding it's going to have scalibility issues as irq work then > converges > to a single list for unbound works. Well, it doesn't seem to be something that would be called often. All CPUs checking a variable that is seldom changed should not have any scalability issues. Unless of course it happens to share a cache line with a variable that does change often. > > Offloading to a workqueue would be perhaps better, and writing to the serial > console could then be done with interrupts enabled, preemptible context, > etc... Oh God no ;-) Adding workqueue logic into printk just spells a nightmare of much more complexity for a critical kernel infrastructure. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
