[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140610164641.GD1951@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:46:42 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] printk: safe printing in NMI context
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09:48AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > I am rather surprised that this patchset hasn't received a single review
> > > comment for 3 weeks.
> > >
> > > Let me point out that the issues Petr is talking about in the cover letter
> > > are real -- we've actually seen the lockups triggered by RCU stall
> > > detector trying to dump stacks on all CPUs, and hard-locking machine up
> > > while doing so.
> > >
> > > So this really needs to be solved.
> >
> > The lack of review may be partly due to a not very appealing changestat
> > on an old codebase that is already unpopular:
> >
> > Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 19 +-
> > kernel/printk/printk.c | 1218 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 2 files changed, 878 insertions(+), 359 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > Your patches look clean and pretty nice actually. They must be seriously
> > considered if we want to keep the current locked ring buffer design and
> > extend it to multiple per context buffers. But I wonder if it's worth to
> > continue that way with the printk ancient design.
> >
> > If it takes more than 1000 line changes (including 500 added) to make it
> > finally work correctly with NMIs by working around its fundamental
> > flaws, shouldn't we rather redesign it to use a lockless ring buffer
> > like ftrace or perf ones?
>
> Yeah, printk() has grown over years to a stinking pile of you-know-what,
> no argument to that.
>
> I also agree that performing a massive rewrite, which will make it use a
> lockless buffer, and therefore ultimately solve all its problems
> (scheduler deadlocks, NMI deadlocks, xtime_lock deadlocks) at once, is
> necessary in the long run.
>
> On the other hand, I am completely sure that the diffstat for such rewrite
> is going to be much more scary :)
Indeed, but probably much more valuable in the long term.
>
> This is not adding fancy features to printk(), where we really should be
> saying no; horrible commits like 7ff9554bb5 is exactly something that
> should be pushed against *heavily*. But bugfixes for hard machine lockups
> are a completely different story to me (until we have a whole new printk()
> buffer handling implementation).
Yeah bugfixes are certainly another story. Still it looks like yet another
layer of workaround on a big hack.
But yeah I'm certainly not in a right position to set anyone to do a massive
rewrite on such a boring subsystem :)
There is also a big risk that if we push back this bugfix, nobody will actually do
that desired rewrite.
Lets be crazy and Cc Linus on that.
--
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