[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160321171105.GA1809@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 02:11:05 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On (03/21/16 16:33), Jan Kara wrote:
[..]
> > > And by calling wake_up_process() under logbuf_lock, you actually introduce
> > > recursion issues for printk_deferred() messages which are supposed to be
> > > working from under rq->lock and similar. So I think you have to keep this
> > > section outside of logbuf_lock.
> >
> > hm, in_sched (printk_deferred()) messages are printed by
> > irq work->wake_up_klogd_work_func(), not by wake_up_process()
> > from vprintk_emit(). or am I missing something?
>
> Think of following:
>
> some function
> printk()
> vprintk_emit()
> spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> ...
> wake_up_process()
> printk_deferred()
> vprintk_emit() -> recursion on logbuf_lock
uh, indeed. I was more concerned about printk() calls that are
troublemakers and are already in wake_up_process() - spin_dump()s.
but yes, braking printk_deferred() in this case is a regression.
thanks for pointing that out. and also thanks to Byungchul.
-ss
> Previously scheduler code was allowed to call printk_deferred() wherever it
> wanted...
>
> So we are not supposed to call into the scheduler from under logbuf_lock...
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists