Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:14:59 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        rostedt@home.goodmis.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup
Message-ID: <20180110181459.GL3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <20180110132418.7080-1-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20180110140547.GZ3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180110130517.6ff91716@vmware.local.home>
 <20180110181252.GK3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180110181252.GK3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > You on the other hand are showing unrealistic scenarios, and crying
> > that it's what you see in production, with no proof of it.
> 
> I've explained the same scenario multiple times.  Unless you're
> assuming that I'm lying, it should be amply clear that the scenario is
> unrealistic - we've been seeing them taking place repeatedly for quite
> a while.

Oops, I meant to write "not unrealistic".  Anyways, if you think I'm
lying, please let me know.  I can ask others who have been seeing the
issue to join the thread.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun