lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 16:30:59 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Hello Jan, On (05/29/17 14:12), Jan Kara wrote: [..] > Actually I had something very similar in old versions of my patch set. And > it didn't work very well. The problem was that e.g. sometimes scheduler > decided that printk kthread should run on the same CPU as the process > currently doing printing and in such case printk kthread never took over > printing and the machine locked up due to heavy printing. hm, interesting. > > First, the real time priority is questionable on its own. Logging > > is important but the real time priority is dangerous. Any "flood" > > of messages will starve all other processes with normal priority. > > It is better than a softlockup but it might cause problems as well. > > Processes with real-time priority should have well bounded runtime (in > miliseconds). Printk kthread doesn't have such bounded runtime so it should > not be a real time process as it could hog the CPU it is running on... yeah, I can easily make it a normal prio task. at the same time printk_kthread has 'soft' limits on its execution. it's under the same constraints as the rest of the processes that do printing. there can be a random RT task doing console_trylock()->console_unlock(), so we still can hog CPUs. but, yeah, I don't want printk_kthread to be special. > So I think what Petr suggests below is better. Keep normal priority, print > something to console from the process doing printk() and just wake up > printk kthread and hope it can print the rest. It is not ideal but unless > there's a flood of messages there is no regression to current state. hm, this is very close to what I do in my patch. with some additional guarantess. because people mostly want to have good old printk. that let's hope part basically doesn't work when it's needed the most. we had a ton of cases of lost messages in serial logs. I replied in more details in another mail. -ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists