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 S1752944AbdDDMWH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:22:07 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:35581 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751031AbdDDMWF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:22:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 22:20:50 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 8/8] printk: enable printk offloading
Message-ID: <20170404132050.GA419@tigerII.localdomain>
References: <20170329092511.3958-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170329092511.3958-9-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170403154210.GG3452@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170403154210.GG3452@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (04/03/17 17:42), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Init printk kthread at late_initcall stage, after core/arch/device/etc.
> > + * initialization.
> > + */
> > +static int __init init_printk_kthread(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *thread;
> > +
> > +	thread = kthread_run(printk_kthread_func, NULL, "printk");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(thread)) {
> > +		pr_err("printk: unable to create printing thread\n");
> > +		return PTR_ERR(thread);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	printk_kthread = thread;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +late_initcall(init_printk_kthread);
> 
> I like the simplicity. I just wonder if people on tiny devices might
> want to disable it. In each case, it does not make sense on non-SMP
> machines or when people force the emergency mode all the time.
> 
> I am not sure what is the practice here. I wonder if we should be
> proactive or keep it as is and wait until anyone complains. IMHO,
> it is not that big deal but...

I tend to agree that this is not a big deal, as of now.
I've bigger concerns.

	-ss