Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu Sep 05 2019 - 12:11:12 EST
[ Added Ted and Linux Plumbers ]
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than
> > > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to
> > > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain
> > > in the long term.
> > I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing
> > the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to
> > use it.
> > It is simple, it works. Let's use it.
> > If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one
> > later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not
> > just head-aches.
> Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit
> down in a room and hash that out?
We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available next