[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160314013752.GB8074@swordfish>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:37:52 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@...il.com, jack@...e.cz,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, peter@...leysoftware.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] printk: Make printing of spin_dump() deferred to
avoid a deadlock
On (03/11/16 19:37), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> +static void __spin_dump_deferred(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
> +{
> + printk_func_t s;
> +
> + s = this_cpu_read(printk_func);
> + this_cpu_write(printk_func, vprintk_deferred);
> +
> + /*
> + * To change printk_func, it must be in preempt disabled and irq
> + * disabled. WARN_ON() should be called after the change because
> + * the default printk_func which may be called from WARN_ON()
> + * is prohibited in this context.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(!preempt_count() || !irqs_disabled());
> + __spin_dump(lock, msg);
> +
> + this_cpu_write(printk_func, s);
> +
> + printk_pending_output();
> +}
>
> +static void spin_dump(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
> +{
> + if (unlikely(console_sem_spin_is_held()))
> + __spin_dump_deferred(lock, msg);
> + else
> + __spin_dump(lock, msg);
> +}
so can it be
vprintk_emit()
__spin_dump_deferred()
vprintk_deferred()
vprintk_emit()
__spin_dump_deferred()
vprintk_deferred()
or am I getting it wrong?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists