Message-ID: <20160121012551.GA594@swordfish>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:25:51 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...nel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -next 2/2] printk: set may_schedule for some of
 console_trylock callers

Hello,

On (01/20/16 13:31), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > console_may_schedule = !oops_in_progress && preemptible() &&
> > 			!rcu_preempt_depth();
> 
> I though about it from some other side and I wonder if we need all
> the console_may_schedule stuff at all.

interesting, thanks.

> printk_emit() has the following code:
> 
> 	/* This stops the holder of console_sem just where we want him */
> 	local_irq_save(flags);
> [...]
> 	lockdep_off();
> 	raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> 	logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
> 
> [...]
> 
> 	logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> 	raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> 	lockdep_on();
> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
> 	/* If called from the scheduler, we can not call up(). */
> 	if (!in_sched) {
> 		lockdep_off();
> 		/*
> 		 * Disable preemption to avoid being preempted while holding
> 		 * console_sem which would prevent anyone from printing to
> 		 * console
> 		 */
> 		preempt_disable();
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * Try to acquire and then immediately release the console
> 		 * semaphore.  The release will print out buffers and wake up
> 		 * /dev/kmsg and syslog() users.
> 		 */
> 		if (console_trylock_for_printk())
> 			console_unlock();
> 		preempt_enable();
> 
> 
> First, the message "This stops the holder of console_sem just where we
> want him" is suspitious.

this comment is irrelevant, as of today. it was, a long time ago, because
the entire thing was a bit different (linux-2.4.21 kernel/printk.c)

        /* This stops the holder of console_sem just where we want him */
        spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);

logbuf_lock does stop the holder, local_irq_save() does not, you are right.


> It is there sice the initial git commit on 2005-04-16. I do not
> understand how this could block the console holder on another CPU.
> I think that it rather allows to make the recursion detection without
> the lockbuf lock. But this is not
> that important.
> 
> More interesting is the counter part:
> 
> 	raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> 	lockdep_on();
> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
> raw_spin_unlock() calls preempt_enable() that calls
> preempt_schedule(). It does nothing here because IRQs
> are still disabled.
> 
> But if we do not need the lockdep_on() hack, we could use
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lockbuf_lock, flags). It means
> that we do not call cond_resched here "only by chance".
> 
> In each case, preemtible kernel seems to be free to reschedule
> after we enable the inrerrupts. By other words, preemptible kernel
> seems to be able to reschedule in printk() already these days.
> Why it might work?
> 
> I think that it might work because cond_resched() or rather
> preempt_schedule() are clever enough. They both check
> preempt_count and do nothing if preemtion is disabled.

is cond_resched() clever enough for vprintk_emit()->onsole_unlock()?
I think it can schedule from rcu read critical section, for example.

rcu_read_lock
  printk
    vprintk_emit
      console_unlock
        cond_resched     << will schedule
rcu_read_unlock

because _cond_resched()->should_resched(0) test
	unlikely(preempt_count() == preempt_offset && tif_need_resched());

it does care about preempt_disable (if the kernel is CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT,
though) and IRQ count, but no rcu preempt count check. and, I think, we also
don't want to schedule when we are in oops_in_progress.
so we can (probably...) get rid of console_may_schedule, but I don't think
we can unconditionally cond_resched() from console_unlock().

> As a result, I think that we do not need the extra checks
> for the save context in printk(). IMHO, it is safe to remove
> all the console_may_schedule stuff and also remove the extra
> preempt_disable/preempt_enable() in vprintk_emit().
> 
> Or did I miss anything?

hm... I suspect the reason we have console_may_schedule is
console_conditional_schedule() - console_sem owner may want
to have an internal logic to re-schedule [fwiw], while still
holding the console_sem. tty/vt/vt.c or video/console/fbcon.c
for example. (in 2.4 kernel: video/fbcon.c and char/console.c).

cond_resched() helps in console_unlock(); console_conditional_schedule()
is called after console_lock() and _before_ console_unlock()....

static void fbcon_redraw_move(struct vc_data *vc, struct display *p,
			      int line, int count, int dy)
{
	unsigned short *s = (unsigned short *)
		(vc->vc_origin + vc->vc_size_row * line);

	while (count--) {
		unsigned short *start = s;
		unsigned short *le = advance_row(s, 1);
		unsigned short c;
		int x = 0;
		unsigned short attr = 1;

		do {
			c = scr_readw(s);
			if (attr != (c & 0xff00)) {
				attr = c & 0xff00;
				if (s > start) {
					fbcon_putcs(vc, start, s - start,
						    dy, x);
					x += s - start;
					start = s;
				}
			}
			console_conditional_schedule();
			s++;
		} while (s < le);
		if (s > start)
			fbcon_putcs(vc, start, s - start, dy, x);
		console_conditional_schedule();
		dy++;
	}
}

dunno... for non-preempt kernels, perhaps?


	-ss

> Best Regards,
> Petr
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists