[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160825210959.GA2273@dhcp128.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:10:00 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, vlevenetz@...sol.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On Mon 2016-08-22 13:15:20, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (08/20/16 14:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (08/19/16 21:00), Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > depending on .config BUG() may never return back -- passing control
> > > > > to do_exit(), so printk_deferred_exit() won't be executed. thus we
> > > > > probably need to have a per-cpu variable that would indicate that
> > > > > we are in deferred_bug. hm... but do we really need deferred BUG()
> > > > > in the first place?
> > > >
> since we are basically interested in wake_up_process() only from
> printk() POV. not sure how acceptable 2 * preempt_count and 2 * per-CPU
> writes for every try_to_wake_up().
>
>
> the other thing I just thought of is doing something as follows
> !!!not tested, will not compile, just an idea!!!
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 6e260a0..bb8d719 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1789,6 +1789,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> printk_delay();
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> + printk_nmi_enter();
> this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> /*
> @@ -1804,6 +1805,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> */
> if (!oops_in_progress && !lockdep_recursing(current)) {
> recursion_bug = true;
> + printk_nmi_exit();
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1920,6 +1922,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> lockdep_on();
> + printk_nmi_exit();
> local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> /* If called from the scheduler, we can not call up(). */
I was so taken by the idea of temporary forcing a lockless and
"trivial" printk implementation that I missed one thing.
Your patch use the alternative printk() variant around logbuf_lock.
But this is not the problem with wake_up_process(). printk_deferred()
takes logbuf_lock without problems.
Our problem is with calling wake_up_process() recursively. The
deadlock is in the scheduler locks.
But the patch still inspired me. What about blocking the problematic
wake_up_process() call by a per-cpu variable. I mean something like
this completely untested code:
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index ca9733b802ce..93915eb1fd0d 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -1708,6 +1708,8 @@ static size_t cont_print_text(char *text, size_t size)
return textlen;
}
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, printk_wakeup);
+
asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
const char *dict, size_t dictlen,
const char *fmt, va_list args)
@@ -1902,8 +1904,17 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
lockdep_off();
if (printk_kthread && !in_panic) {
+ bool __percpu *printk_wakeup_ptr;
+
/* Offload printing to a schedulable context. */
- wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ printk_wake_up_ptr = this_cpu_ptr(&printk_wake_up);
+ if (!*printk_wakeup_ptr) {
+ *printk_wake_up_ptr = true;
+ wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
+ *printk_wake_up_ptr = false;
+ }
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
goto out_lockdep;
} else {
/*
We might eventually hide this into a wake_up_process_safe() or so.
Also we might need to use it also in console_unlock() to avoid similar
recursion there as well.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists