[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160208161123.2ceb601d@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:11:23 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srostedt@...hat.com,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: avoid livelock if another CPU printks
continuously
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:35:03 +0100
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> This patch is reported to make affected user's machine survive.
Would be nice to have a test case for this. Make a test module to
reproduce the issue?
>
> Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> CC: srostedt@...hat.com
> CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> CC: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> ---
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index c963ba5..ca4f9d55 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -2235,6 +2235,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> unsigned long flags;
> bool wake_klogd = false;
> bool do_cond_resched, retry;
> + unsigned cnt;
>
> if (console_suspended) {
> up_console_sem();
> @@ -2257,6 +2258,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> /* flush buffered message fragment immediately to console */
> console_cont_flush(text, sizeof(text));
> again:
> + cnt = 5;
> for (;;) {
> struct printk_log *msg;
> size_t ext_len = 0;
> @@ -2284,6 +2286,9 @@ skip:
> if (console_seq == log_next_seq)
> break;
>
> + if (--cnt == 0)
> + break; /* Someone else printk's like crazy */
> +
> msg = log_from_idx(console_idx);
> if (msg->flags & LOG_NOCONS) {
> /*
> @@ -2350,6 +2355,26 @@ skip:
> if (retry && console_trylock())
> goto again;
>
> + if (cnt == 0) {
> + /*
> + * Other CPU(s) printk like crazy, filling log_buf[].
> + * Try to get rid of the "honor" of servicing their data:
> + * give _them_ time to grab console_sem and start working.
> + */
> + cnt = 9999;
I'll ignore that this looks very hacky.
> + while (--cnt != 0) {
> + cpu_relax();
> + if (console_seq == log_next_seq) {
First, console_seq needs logbuf_lock protection. On some archs, this may
hit 9999 every time as the console_seq is most likely in cache and isn't
updating. Not to mention the race of another task moving log_next_seq
too and this could have been on another CPU changing both console_seq
and log_next_seq.
Perhaps just save off console_seq and see if it changes at all.
> + /* Good, other CPU entered "for(;;)" loop */
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> + /* No one seems to be willing to take it... */
> + if (console_trylock())
> + goto again; /* we took it */
Perhaps add a few loops to the taking of the console sem. But again,
this just sounds like playing with heuristics, and I hate heuristics.
There's gotta be a better solution.
-- Steve
> + /* Nope, someone else holds console_sem! Good */
> + }
> +out:
> if (wake_klogd)
> wake_up_klogd();
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists