From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754616AbeARFn6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:43:58 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.83.47]:45676 "EHLO mail-pg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754094AbeARFn5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:43:57 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot0LELAgJMTSbP9YJuEgnscxe0+vpiqgQL1iOdwBreo7dU1Coo4vg/7S4HMCy6OB3mx6rX1rQ== Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:43:52 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Tejun Heo Cc: Steven Rostedt , Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Cong Wang , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tetsuo Handa , rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com, Byungchul Park , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup Message-ID: <20180118054352.GC6529@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20180111093435.GA24497@linux.suse> <20180111103845.GB477@jagdpanzerIV> <20180111112908.50de440a@vmware.local.home> <20180111203057.5b1a8f8f@gandalf.local.home> <20180111215547.2f66a23a@gandalf.local.home> <20180116194456.GS3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180117091208.ezvuhumnsarz5thh@pathway.suse.cz> <20180117151509.GT3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180117121251.7283a56e@gandalf.local.home> <20180117200551.GW3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180117200551.GW3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (01/17/18 12:05), Tejun Heo wrote: [..] > > This could very well be a great place to force offloading. If a printk > > is called from within a printk, at the same context (normal, softirq, > > irq or NMI), then we should trigger the offloading. > > I was thinking more of a timeout based approach (ie. if stuck for > longer than X or X messages, offload) yep, that's what I want. for a whole bunch of different reasons. -ss