Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:31:51 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Do people have issues with the current upstream printk() or
> still even with Steven's patch?
> 
> My current view is that Steven's patch could not make things
> worse. I was afraid of possible deadlock but it seems that I was
> wrong. Other than that the patch should make things just better
> because it allows to pass the work from time to time a safe way.
> 
> Of course, there is a chance that it will pass the work from
> a safe context to atomic one. But there was the same chance that
> the work already started in the atomic context. Therefore statistically
> this should not make things worse.
> 
> This is why I suggest to start with Steven's solution. If people
> would still see problems in the real life then we could think
> about how to fix it. It is quite likely that we would need to add
> offloading to the kthreads in the end but there is a chance...
> 
> In each case, I think that is better to split in into
> two or even more steps than introducing one mega-complex
> change. And given the many-years resistance against offloading
> I tend to start with Steven's approach.

THANK YOU!!!

This is exactly what I'm trying to convey.

> 
> Does this make some sense, please?

It definitely does to me :-)

-- Steve