[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171102133836.01208f60@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:38:36 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"yuwang.yuwang" <yuwang.yuwang@...baba-inc.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
balance console writes
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:06:05 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + waiter = console_waiter;
> + console_owner = NULL;
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is a waiter waiting for us, then pass the
> + * rest of the work load over to that waiter.
> + */
> + if (waiter)
> + break;
OK, the spin_unlock() wont let the load leak. Thus it is fine as is.
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + owner = console_owner;
> + waiter = console_waiter;
> + if (!waiter && owner && owner != current) {
But Mathieu Desnoyers pointed out that usage of variables within a
spinlock may be an issue. Although, it shouldn't affect the code as is,
I think I'll add back READ/WRITE_ONCE() just to be on the safe side.
I may add the waiter = READ_ONCE(console_waiter) to the first one too,
more as documentation. It should cause any issues to add it.
-- Steve
> + console_waiter = true;
> + spin = true;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists