[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307698844.3941.105.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:40:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 11:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Some notes:
> >
> > Stupid thing doesn't explain the magical locking though :( I'm
> > 99.9% sure that putting an up() inside a spinlock_irq()ed region
> > was deliberate.
>
> My guess would be it's done so that pending irqs that have queued up
> during our current printk-ing activities do not hit us with the
> console still locked.
Ah, so we already flushed the buffer, but have console_sem locked, so
any interrupt that comes in and prints something will place it in the
buffer but find console_sem is taken, so not flush it.
Then when we're back to doing up() the buffer is filled and nobody will
flush it.
I guess, we can write it like:
spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
up(&console_sem);
local_irq_restore(flags);
which would keep interrupt disabled over up(), but have the logbuf_lock
dropped.
--
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