On (09/05/19 13:23), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I think we can queue significantly much less irq_work-s from printk(). > > > > Petr, Steven, what do you think? [..] > I mean, really, do we need to keep calling wake up if it > probably never even executed? I guess ratelimiting you are talking about ("if it probably never even executed") would be to check if we have already called wake up on the log_wait ->head. For that we need to, at least, take log_wait spin_lock and check that ->head is still in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; which is (quite, but not exactly) close to what wake_up_interruptible() does - it doesn't wake up the same task twice, it bails out on `p->state & state' check. Or did I miss something? -ss