[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110609135542.GD21100@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:55:42 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
efault@....de, Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] printk: Avoid all wakeups from printk
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> +static void __console_flush(void);
I'd suggest moving this function to the right place, so that no
prototypes are necessary.
> +/*
> + * Special 'atomic' semaphore operations that mimmick down_trylock() + up(),
mimic
> + * except they don't release the semaphore internal lock and optimize the
> + * sem->count fiddling away.
> + *
> + * The advantage is that this construct doesn't generate wakeups on atomic_up()
> + * since any contending semaphore acuiqisition will still be spinning on the
acquisition.
> + * internal lock, instead of having gotten queued on the wait_list.
> + *
> + * printk() uses this to avoid generating wakeups, which would make it unsafe
> + * to use in certain contexts (avoids lock inversion or lock recursion with
> + * the scheduler locks).
> + *
> + * Assumes IRQs are disabled.
I'd add:
* Note: We emphatically do *not* want this function exported. Ever.
and maybe:
* Note2: Even asking for that will likely buy you a nasty response.
> + */
> +static int atomic_down_trylock(struct semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> + if (sem->count > 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +static void atomic_up(struct semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
> +}
> +
> asmlinkage int vprintk(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> {
> int printed_len = 0;
> @@ -943,19 +939,14 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk(const char *fmt,
> if (*p == '\n')
> new_text_line = 1;
> }
> + printk_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> + spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
Hm, is that printk_cpu setting inside the critical section safe? What
happens if we get an NMI on this CPU in that window?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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