On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:44:47 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <serge****@gmail*****> wrote: > > > I do recall that we talked about per-CPU printk state bit which would > > > start/end "just print it" section. We probably can extend it to "just > > > log_store" type of functionality. Doesn't look like a very bad idea. > > > > The problem with per-CPU printk is that we would need to disable > > interrupts. > > Or disable preemption and have loglevel per-CPU and per-context. > preempt_count can navigate us to the right context loglevel on > particular CPU. I'm talking here only about backtrace (error) > reporting contexts. Those can be atomic perfectly fine. With my real-time hat on, I'm totally against disabling of preemption for this purpose. -- Steve
Fork