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 S1752042AbdF3NdP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:33:15 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48864 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751695AbdF3NdO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:33:14 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C528922BD9
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:33:09 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@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>,
        Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Message-ID: <20170630093309.5994110a@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20170630124224.GA792@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20170509082859.854-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
        <20170509082859.854-3-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
        <20170510055935.GA1966@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
        <20170529092906.GD21894@pathway.suse.cz>
        <20170531072233.GC7672@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
        <20170628121925.GN1538@pathway.suse.cz>
        <20170629073321.GA475@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
        <20170630115457.GE23069@pathway.suse.cz>
        <20170630124224.GA792@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:42:24 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:

> I apply a very simple litmus test. if the answer to the question
> "so we leave console_unlock() and there are pending messages,
> who and when is going to flush the remaining messages?" is
> "something sometime in the future" then it's a no-no.

I totally agree with this, but...

> 
> "something sometime in the future" is equal to "no one".
> 
> we must stay and continue printing. because it gives the right
> answer - "current process and right now. until someone else
> (+printk_kthread) takes over".

Would it be acceptable to have a user knob that allows for it not to
happen? That is, let the user of the kernel decide if they care about
critical prints or not? If a knob says, "only print X, then offload"
would that be allowed. Of course the default would be "only print ALL
OF IT" to keep the current behavior.

A lot of times the console isn't recorded to debug hard lock ups. I
know most desktops running a GUI do not. When ever my workstation locks
up, and it has no serial, I don't get to see the dmesg at all. In this
situation, I don't care if the prints are offloaded or not.

-- Steve