[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161213012706.GD415@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:27:06 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 6/7] printk: use printk_safe buffers in printk
On (12/12/16 17:30), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-12-01 22:55:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Use printk_safe per-CPU buffers in printk recursion-prone blocks:
> > -- around logbuf_lock protected sections in vprintk_emit() and
> > console_unlock()
> > -- around down_trylock_console_sem() and up_console_sem()
> >
> > Note that this solution addresses deadlocks caused by printk()
> > recursive calls only. That is vprintk_emit() and console_unlock().
> >
> > Another thing to note is that we now keep lockdep enabled in printk,
> > because we are protected against the printk recursion caused by lockdep
> > in vprintk_emit() by the printk-safe mechanism - we first switch to
> > per-CPU buffers and only then access the deadlock-prone locks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
>
> Looks fine and safe to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
thanks.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists