Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:15:47 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/