[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171208140022.uln4t5e5drrhnvvt@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:00:22 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
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
Hello,
thanks a lot for help. I am sorry for the late response. I wanted to
handle this mail with a clean head.
On Tue 2017-11-28 10:42:29, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:58:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > @@ -1797,13 +1797,6 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> > 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_);
>
> Hello Petr,
>
> IMHO, it would get unbalanced if you only remove this mutex_acquire().
>
> > console_unlock();
> > printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> > }
> > @@ -2334,10 +2327,10 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> > /* The waiter is now free to continue */
> > spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> > /*
> > - * Hand off console_lock to waiter. The waiter will perform
> > - * the up(). After this, the waiter is the console_lock owner.
> > + * Hand off console_lock to waiter. After this, the waiter
> > + * is the console_lock owner.
> > */
> > - mutex_release(&console_lock_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
>
> IMHO, this release() should be moved to somewhere properly.
>
> > + lock_commit_crosslock((struct lockdep_map *)&console_lock_dep_map);
> > printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> > /* Note, if waiter is set, logbuf_lock is not held */
> > return;
>
> However, now that cross-release was introduces, lockdep can be applied
> to semaphore operations. Actually, I have a plan to do that. I think it
> would be better to make semaphore tracked with lockdep and remove all
> these manual acquire() and release() here. What do you think about it?
IMHO, it would be great to add lockdep annotations into semaphore
operations.
Well, I am not sure if this would be enough in this case. I think
that the locking dependency in this Steven's patch is special.
The semaphore is passed from one owner to another one without
unlocking. Both sides wait for each other using a busy loop.
The busy loop/waiting is activated only when the current owner
is not sleeping to avoid softlockup. I think that it is
a kind of conditional cross-release or something even
more special.
Sigh, I wish I was able to clean my head even more to be
able to think about this.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists