[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100204045357.GC30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:53:57 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] %pd - for printing dentry name
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:04:19AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:19:52AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > If we are going to take a lock this seems as sane as any.
> >
> > Do we want to honor oops_in_progress aka bust_spinlocks here?
> >
> > Perhaps just:
> > if (oops_in_progress)
> > return buf;
> >
> > To guarantee we get the rest of a panic message out of the kernel.
>
> Hmm... There's another fun issue - we would want local_irq_disable() /
> local_irq_enable() in d_move_locked and local_irq_save/local_irq_restore()
> in dname_string(), AFAICT.
>
> OK, here's what I've got from moving in that direction. Folks, how does
> that one look to you? I'm not too happy about explicit manipulations
> with irq flags in there, so any suggestions would be welcome.
Argh. No, it's not at all better. Moreover, even read_seqbegin variant
is b0rken if we ever do that under ->d_lock.
CPU1:A: grabs dentry->d_lock
CPU2:B: calls d_move_locked()
CPU2:B: grabs rename_lock
CPU2:B: spins on dentry->d_lock
CPU1:A: calls printk with %pd dentry
CPU1:A: spins waiting for rename_lock writer to release it
So much for that approach ;-/
--
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