[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161222053119.GE644@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:31:19 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 6/7] printk: use printk_safe buffers in printk
Hello,
On (12/21/16 23:36), 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().
several questions.
so my plan was to introduce printk-safe and to switch vprintk_emit()
and console_sem related functions (like console_unlock(), etc.) to
printk-safe first. and switch the remaining logbuf_lock users, like
devkmsg_open()/syslog_print()/etc, in a followup, pretty much
mechanical "find logbuf_lock - add printk_safe", patch. but that
followup patch is bigger than I expected (still mechanical tho);
so I want to re-group.
there are
9 raw_spin_lock_irq(&logbuf_lock)
7 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags)
and
12 raw_spin_lock_irq(&logbuf_lock)
8 raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags)
wrapping each one of them in printk_safe_enter()/printk_safe_enter_irq()
and printk_safe_exit()/printk_safe_exit_irq() is a bit boring. so I have
several options: one of them is to add printk_safe_{enter,exit}_irq() and,
along with it, a bunch of help macros (to printk.c):
(questions below)
/*
* Helper macros to lock/unlock logbuf_lock in deadlock safe
* manner (logbuf_lock may spin_dump() in lock/unlock).
*/
#define lock_logbuf(flags) \
do { \
printk_safe_enter(flags); \
raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock); \
} while (0)
#define unlock_logbuf(flags) \
do { \
raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); \
printk_safe_exit(flags); \
} while (0)
#define lock_logbuf_irq() \
do { \
printk_safe_enter_irq(); \
raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock); \
} while (0)
#define unlock_logbuf_irq() \
do { \
raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); \
printk_safe_exit_irq(); \
} while (0)
so this
printk_safe_enter_irq();
raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
...
raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
printk_safe_exit(flags);
or this
printk_safe_enter_irq();
raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
...
raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
printk_safe_exit_irq();
becomes this
lock_logbuf(flags);
...
unlock_logbuf(flags);
and this
lock_logbuf_irq();
...
unlock_logbuf_irq();
questions:
-- the approach
another solution? switch those raw_spin_{lock,unlock}_irq to irqsave/irqrestore
(?) and use the existing printk_safe_enter()/printk_safe_exit(),
so *_irq() versions of lock_logbuf/printk_safe macros will not be needed?
-- the naming
are lock_logbuf()/unlock_logbuf() and lock_logbuf_irq()/unlock_logbuf_irq()
good enough? (if good at all)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists