Hi, On (01/15/18 11:17), Petr Mladek wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > I wonder if there is still some miss understanding. > > Steven and me are trying to get this patch in because we believe > that it is a step forward. We know that it is not perfect. But > we believe that it makes things better. In particular, it limits > the time spent in console_unlock() in atomic context. It does > not make it worse in preemptible context. > > It does not block further improvements, including offloading > to the kthread. We will happily discuss and review further > improvements, it they prove to be necessary. > > The advantage of this approach is that it is incremental. It should > be easier for review and analyzing possible regressions. > > What is the aim of your mails, please? > Do you want to say that this patch might cause regressions? > Or do you want to say that it does not solve all scenarios? > > Please, answer the above questions. I am still confused. I ACK-ed the patch set, given that I hope that we at least will do (a) a) remove preemption out of printk()->user critical path --- b) the next thing would be - O(logbuf) is not a good boundary c) the thing after that would be to - O(logbuf) boundary can be broken in both preemptible and non-preemptible contexts. but (b) and (c) can wait. -ss -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
