Hello, Sergey. On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:01:53AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/23/18 10:41), Steven Rostedt wrote: > [..] > > We can have more. But if printk is causing printks, that's a major bug. > > And work queues are not going to fix it, it will just spread out the > > pain. Have it be 100 printks, it needs to be fixed if it is happening. > > And having all printks just generate more printks is not helpful. Even > > if we slow them down. They will still never end. > > Dropping the messages is not the solution either. The original bug report > report was - this "locks up my kernel". That's it. That's all people asked > us to solve. > > With WQ we don't lockup the kernel, because we flush printk_safe in > preemptible context. And people are very much expected to fix the > misbehaving consoles. But that should not be printk_safe problem. I really don't care as long as it's robust enough. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>
