From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751827AbcGNV5Z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:57:25 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:34489 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751653AbcGNV5X (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:57:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:57:21 -0700
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        vlevenetz@mm-sol.com, Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>,
        Alex Elder <alex.elder@linaro.org>, johan@kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler
Message-ID: <20160714215721.GD3057@ubuntu>
References: <20160706182842.GS2671@ubuntu>
 <20160711102603.GI12410@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20160711154438.GA528@swordfish>
 <20160711223501.GI4695@ubuntu>
 <20160712231903.GR4695@ubuntu>
 <20160713054507.GA563@swordfish>
 <20160713153910.GY4695@ubuntu>
 <20160714005524.GA517@swordfish>
 <CAJZ5v0ggjER5soi35bvNHTxGLYK7pie_DxtZKQHSvdH6wFf9AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160714013215.GB517@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160714013215.GB517@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 14-07-16, 10:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> it wouldn't really, this silly question was not directly related to the
> deadlock we are discussing here but to Viresh's argument that later stages
> of suspending/hibernation seem to printk many messages in sync mode. so I
> thought that there might be a small benefit in suspending consoles later,
> as far as I understand, Viresh has `no_console_suspend' anyway. other

That option is enabled only for testing though :)

> than that, I tend to stick to the approach of switching to sync mode from
> suspend_console().

I actually need to test it out as well :)

-- 
viresh