From: Andrew M. <an...@uo...> - 2001-01-17 13:41:39
|
James Simmons wrote: > > Some time ago a intel i810 framebuffer driver was written. It only worked > for 2.2.X. With 2.4.X a spinlock is used in the upper layers of the > console system. Sooner or later we are going to run into the situtation > where we will have graphics hardware which has no vga core and wih be > purely DMA/irq based (i.e i810). In this case using the current > console_lock will block the driver itself. I have thought about a > possible solution. A semaphore can't be used since their is a spin_lock > in the console_softirq. Since this is in a interrupt context a > semaphore can't be used. Another idea was to do a > > void get_vc_lock(void) > { > while (test_and_set_bit(0, &vc_var)) > ; > } > > Any better ideas? > heh. I'm actually planning on grabbing console_lock and thoroughly strangling it next week. It can block interrupts for up to a second. That just isn't civil. - Use a semaphore for serialisation. - For printk in interrupt context, grab the semaphore (yes, you can do this). - If it couldn't be acquired from interrupt context, buffer the text in the log buffer and return. The text will be printed by whoever holds the semaphore before they drop it. - Special "system booting" mode which bypasses all this stuff. - Special "oops in progress" mode which just punches through everything. - Get rid of the special printk buffer - share the log buffer. (Implies writes to console devices will be broken into two writes when they wrap around). - Teach vsprintf to print into a circular buffer (snprintf thus comes for free). - Get rid of all the printk deadlock opportunities (fourth attempt). - Get rid of console_tasklet. Do it in process context callback or just do it synchronously. Assumption: - Once the system is up and running, it's always safe to call down() when in_interrupt() returns false - probably not the case in parts of the exit path - tough. Anyway, that's the thoughtware. Sound sane? - |