linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1307709764.3941.141.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:42:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
	Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>,
	PaulMundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock

On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > thinking that that would have my printk stmts appear on both the 
> > > fbcon as well as the serial line. But they fail to appear on the 
> > > latency tracer (current max was 165us waking an idle cpu).
> > 
> > Have you removed this bit:
> > 
> >                 spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> >                 stop_critical_timings();        /* don't trace print latency */
> >                 call_console_drivers(_con_start, _log_end);
> >                 start_critical_timings();
> >                 local_irq_restore(flags);
> > 
> > which hides the latencies from the latency tracer?
> 
> it shouldn't those flags come from spin_lock_irqsave(), which already
> has IRQs disabled, so the restore shouldn't re-enable them.
> 
> Hmm,. that might actually already be true for mainline too, yeah, looks
> like we call vprintk()->console_unlock() with IRQs-disabled.
> 
> Hohumm..

Also, I used the preemptirqoff tracer, so even if it did re-enable
interrupts we should still have preemption disabled and still catch the
latency.
--
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/