[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080123173249.GA23503@Krystal>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:32:49 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20 -v5] printk - dont wakeup klogd with interrupts
disabled
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:02 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > + if (!irqs_disabled() && wake_klogd)
> > > wake_up_klogd();
> >
> > This causes a regression .. When printk is called during an OOPS in
> > kernels without this change then the OOPS will get logged, since the
> > logging process (klogd) is woken to handle the messages.. If you apply
> > this change klogd doesn't wakeup, and hence doesn't log the oops.. So if
> > you remove the wakeup here you have to add it someplace else to maintain
> > the logging ..
> >
> > (I'm not theorizing here, I have defects logged against this specific
> > piece of code..)
>
> It wont get woken up anyway. Did you look at wake_up_klogd?
>
> void wake_up_klogd(void)
> {
> if (!oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
> wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
> }
>
>
> So if oops_in_progress is set, then it still wont get woken. Perhaps it
> got woken some other way? Or is oops_in_progress not set in these oops?
>
> One other solution is to make the runqueue locks visible externally. Like:
>
> in sched.c:
>
> int runqueue_is_locked(void)
> {
> int cpu = get_cpu();
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> int ret;
>
> ret = spin_is_locked(&rq->lock);
> put_cpu();
> return ret;
> }
>
> And in printk we could do:
>
> if (wake_klogd && !runqueue_is_locked())
> wake_up_klogd();
>
> This probably is the cleanest solution since it simply prevents the
> deadlock from occurring.
>
FYI :
kernel/panic.c
NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
{
....
bust_spinlocks(1);
...
bust_spinlocks(0);
...
In bust_spinlocks :
void __attribute__((weak)) bust_spinlocks(int yes)
{
if (yes) {
++oops_in_progress;
} else {
#ifdef CONFIG_VT
unblank_screen();
#endif
if (--oops_in_progress == 0)
wake_up_klogd();
}
}
Where the final wake_up happens while oops_in_progress is 0, but
interrupts are still disabled.
So about my previous email, proposing testing oops_in_progress, it just
won't work.
Mathieu
> -- Steve
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists