[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160712140428.GS4695@ubuntu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:04:28 -0700
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
vlevenetz@...sol.com, vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org,
alex.elder@...aro.org, johan@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler
On 12-07-16, 15:56, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Ah, I have missed that the hang happens only when you use the async
> printk patchset.
And that also doesn't happen always, but only sometimes. So there is a
race somewhere I feel :)
> I wonder if it is somehow related to the commit 8d91f8b15361dfb438ab
> ("printk: do cond_resched() between lines while outputting to
> consoles"). A process (printk thread) might sleep with taken
> console_sem. Then suspend_console() might be unable to
> get the semaphore in console_lock() and might deadlock.
I am not sure at this point really, and I don't have indepth knowledge
of printk core as well (I should accept that here :).
> Does it help to enable "no_console_suspend" please?
No. With no_console_suspend, we just print one more line (Disabling
non-boot CPUs) and once the interrupt on the local CPU are disabled,
we don't get any more prints until a resume happens.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists