Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:57:38 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
       marcin.slusarz@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
Message-Id: <20080324115738.85c72bb5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1206382547.6437.131.camel@lappy>
References: <20080324122424.671168000@chello.nl>
	<alpine.LFD.1.00.0803241021350.17905@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<1206382547.6437.131.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1007
Lines: 23

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:15:47 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> How about I use the lockdep infrastructure to check if printk() is
> invoked whole holding either xtime or rq lock, and then avoid calling
> wake_up_klogd(). That way, we at least get sane debug output when the
> lock debugging infrastructure is enabled?

The core problem seems to be that printk shouldn't be calling wake_up(). 
Can we fix that?

I expect it would be acceptable to do it from the timer interrupt instead. 
For NOHZ kernels a poll when we enter the idle loop would also be needed. 

But does that cover everything?  Is it possible for a CPU to run 100% busy
while not receiving timer interrupts?  I guess so.  To receive no
interrupts at all?  Also possible.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/