| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171127084822.GA15859@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:48:22 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.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@...babab-inc.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
rostedt@...e.goodmis.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
balance console writes
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:27:23AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> --- linux-trace.git.orig/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ linux-trace.git/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -86,8 +86,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(console_drivers);
> static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
> .name = "console_lock"
> };
> +static struct lockdep_map console_owner_dep_map = {
> + .name = "console_owner"
> +};
> #endif
>
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(console_owner_lock);
> +static struct task_struct *console_owner;
> +static bool console_waiter;
> +
> enum devkmsg_log_bits {
> __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON = 0,
> __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF,
> @@ -1753,8 +1760,56 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility
> * semaphore. The release will print out buffers and wake up
> * /dev/kmsg and syslog() users.
> */
> - if (console_trylock())
> + if (console_trylock()) {
> console_unlock();
> + } else {
> + struct task_struct *owner = NULL;
> + bool waiter;
> + bool spin = false;
> +
> + printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + owner = READ_ONCE(console_owner);
> + waiter = READ_ONCE(console_waiter);
> + if (!waiter && owner && owner != current) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(console_waiter, true);
> + spin = true;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is an active printk() writing to the
> + * consoles, instead of having it write our data too,
> + * see if we can offload that load from the active
> + * printer, and do some printing ourselves.
> + * Go into a spin only if there isn't already a waiter
> + * spinning, and there is an active printer, and
> + * that active printer isn't us (recursive printk?).
> + */
> + if (spin) {
> + /* We spin waiting for the owner to release us */
> + spin_acquire(&console_owner_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
Hello Steven,
I think it would be better to use cross-release stuff here, because the
waiter waits for an event which happens in another context.
> + /* Owner will clear console_waiter on hand off */
> + while (READ_ONCE(console_waiter))
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> + printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * The owner passed the console lock to us.
> + * Since we did not spin on console lock, annotate
> + * this as a trylock. Otherwise lockdep will
> + * complain.
> + */
> + mutex_acquire(&console_lock_dep_map, 0, 1, _THIS_IP_);
I'm afraid if it's ok even not to lock(or trylock) actually here. Is there
any problem if you call console_trylock() instead of mutex_acquire() here?
> + console_unlock();
> + printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> + }
> + printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> +
> + }
> }
>
> return printed_len;
> @@ -2141,6 +2196,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> static u64 seen_seq;
> unsigned long flags;
> bool wake_klogd = false;
> + bool waiter = false;
> bool do_cond_resched, retry;
>
> if (console_suspended) {
> @@ -2229,14 +2285,64 @@ skip:
> console_seq++;
> raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>
> + /*
> + * While actively printing out messages, if another printk()
> + * were to occur on another CPU, it may wait for this one to
> + * finish. This task can not be preempted if there is a
> + * waiter waiting to take over.
> + */
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + console_owner = current;
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /* The waiter may spin on us after setting console_owner */
> + spin_acquire(&console_owner_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
If you want to do this speculatively here, I think it would be better to
use a read recursive acquisition. I think spin_acquire() is too stong
for that purpose - I also mentioned it on workqueue flush code. Don't
you think so?
> +
> stop_critical_timings(); /* don't trace print latency */
> call_console_drivers(ext_text, ext_len, text, len);
> start_critical_timings();
> +
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + waiter = READ_ONCE(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;
> +
> + /* There was no waiter, and nothing will spin on us here */
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
I think this release() can be moved up over 'if (waiter)' because only
waiters within the region between acquire() and release() are meaningful.
> +
> printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
>
> if (do_cond_resched)
> cond_resched();
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is an active waiter waiting on the console_lock.
> + * Pass off the printing to the waiter, and the waiter
> + * will continue printing on its CPU, and when all writing
> + * has finished, the last printer will wake up klogd.
> + */
> + if (waiter) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(console_waiter, false);
> + /* The waiter is now free to continue */
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
So this can be removed.
Thanks,
Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists