[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110818130447.GA1972@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:04:47 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: pstore: change mutex locking to spin_locks
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:47:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 14:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's still bad if lockdep is enabled. See
> > kernel/lockdep.c:lock_acquire() and lock_release(). They aren't
> > NMI-safe.
>
> Good thing nmi_enter() does lockdep_disable() and makes lock_acquire()
> bail on if (current->lockdep_recursion).
>
> Still the fact that pstore needs locks from NMI context (let alone tried
> to use a mutex) makes one think one should avoid it like the plague.
Unfortunately, this plague is called ACPI4 (well APEI). It's an attempt
to provide a coherent strategy for platform errors. It needs a lot of
love to make it work, so we can't just avoid it (well us distro folks have
customers who want this). :-(
I have been having conversations with Matthew and Vivek Goyal about how to
simplify kmsg_dump, which might allow us to make some of the pstore paths
lockless, simplifying the solution. We'll see how that goes.
Cheers,
Don
--
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