[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160826082048.GA498@swordfish>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:20:48 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.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>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On (08/26/16 10:56), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> but every lock we take is potentially dangerous as well.
...
> vprintk_emit()
> {
> alt_printk_enter();
> ...
> log_store();
> ...
> alt_printk_exit();
>
> wakep_up_process() /* direct from async printk,
> or indirect from console_unlock()->up() */
> alt_printk_enter();
> ... enqueue task
> alt_printk_exit();
> }
OTOH, after a very quick thought, up() also takes a spin lock, which
may spindump. so I'll probably prefer to keep the entire alt-printk
thing entirely in printk(). something like this
vprintk_emit()
{
alt_printk_enter()
log_store()
alt_printk_exit()
if (async_printk)
{
alt_printk_enter()
wake_up_process()
alt_printk_exit()
} else {
if (console_trylock()) {
console_unlock()
{
....
alt_printk_enter()
up()
alt_printk_exit()
}
}
}
}
this leaves console_trylock() `unprotected'. so I guess I'll do
something like this:
} else {
int ret;
alt_printk_enter()
ret = console_trylock();
alt_printk_exit()
if (ret)
console_unlock();
}
a bit ugly, but well, it is what it is. will think more about it.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists