From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A4771C13 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:22:37 +0000 (UTC) From: John Ogness DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1664460784; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U6eCrG1bH2S5fazyYRexbB2EWVUobKqy0ORHgIDtUYs=; b=2g6I7PM7tVIp0xbIrsWRmMwSlnQSNBLRAtDvVxGvExqAsBrGpQzn7MU/FpE3DOEemN899Z zcDBfbuXSdNPC83MBHqfUkpVQ7fu3VMOgYKUadQ+vjYZ2OAz1xjAp9e9QC5OQkzRVFgo9O jJwFB7tNqtfRgXt5dUdcLaI4meMSFqoapyBbehk3304QKYdnnAEuA5TekI0Jz55QL3JSDc 1h1IVon9JkkT9y4wlyEiJ8bR9SK4uDV4yLs0nML54GpqErdpGulhsQ3Rze0vsn+obQbFvA ItRD+EVC/YDU8vkW0kGiwasvUu2QNAKVUb2/ZB8XvZoVyAMM2+Gs9k7CfGz6Fg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1664460784; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U6eCrG1bH2S5fazyYRexbB2EWVUobKqy0ORHgIDtUYs=; b=jncNNLCbNfH8hPTqrL9DjDR3m8DpnXXaYuiHXNE0yLH7NCPMzcboRdAHe6567mUYhzlxud L94aX1AGNyN7fKDw== To: Conor Dooley , Petr Mladek Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , Conor Dooley , senozhatsky@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [resend][bug] low-probability console lockups since 5.19 In-Reply-To: References: <98f62903-3d6f-30b4-82ef-3b0460824907@leemhuis.info> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:19:03 +0206 Message-ID: <877d1m46c0.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On 2022-09-29, Conor Dooley wrote: > I will, possibly tonight but probably not, run the bisection again > with the threaded printer merge reverted. Hopefully it is not filled > with conflicts if I go that way... It might be easier for you to just apply the following patch to run your tests . This simple patch disables kthread usage. John Ogness diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c index b095fb5f5f61..9679887c0805 100644 --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c @@ -3605,6 +3605,10 @@ static int __init printk_activate_kthreads(void) { struct console *con; + /* hack: never activate kthreads */ + if (!printk_kthreads_available) + return 0; + console_lock(); printk_kthreads_available = true; for_each_console(con)