Message-ID: <f4ea1404-404d-11d2-550c-7367add3f5fa@lge.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:19:53 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     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>,
        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,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
 balance console writes

On 1/10/2018 10:24 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> From: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> This patch implements what I discussed in Kernel Summit. I added
> lockdep annotation (hopefully correctly), and it hasn't had any splats
> (since I fixed some bugs in the first iterations). It did catch
> problems when I had the owner covering too much. But now that the owner
> is only set when actively calling the consoles, lockdep has stayed
> quiet.
> 
> Here's the design again:
> 
> I added a "console_owner" which is set to a task that is actively
> writing to the consoles. It is *not* the same as the owner of the
> console_lock. It is only set when doing the calls to the console
> functions. It is protected by a console_owner_lock which is a raw spin
> lock.
> 
> There is a console_waiter. This is set when there is an active console
> owner that is not current, and waiter is not set. This too is protected
> by console_owner_lock.
> 
> In printk() when it tries to write to the consoles, we have:
> 
> 	if (console_trylock())
> 		console_unlock();
> 
> Now I added an else, which will check if there is an active owner, and
> no current waiter. If that is the case, then console_waiter is set, and
> the task goes into a spin until it is no longer set.
> 
> When the active console owner finishes writing the current message to
> the consoles, it grabs the console_owner_lock and sees if there is a
> waiter, and clears console_owner.
> 
> If there is a waiter, then it breaks out of the loop, clears the waiter
> flag (because that will release the waiter from its spin), and exits.
> Note, it does *not* release the console semaphore. Because it is a
> semaphore, there is no owner. Another task may release it. This means
> that the waiter is guaranteed to be the new console owner! Which it
> becomes.
> 
> Then the waiter calls console_unlock() and continues to write to the
> consoles.
> 
> If another task comes along and does a printk() it too can become the
> new waiter, and we wash rinse and repeat!
> 
> By Petr Mladek about possible new deadlocks:
> 
> The thing is that we move console_sem only to printk() call
> that normally calls console_unlock() as well. It means that
> the transferred owner should not bring new type of dependencies.
> As Steven said somewhere: "If there is a deadlock, it was
> there even before."
> 
> We could look at it from this side. The possible deadlock would
> look like:
> 
> CPU0                            CPU1
> 
> console_unlock()
> 
>    console_owner = current;
> 
> 				spin_lockA()
> 				  printk()
> 				    spin = true;
> 				    while (...)
> 
>      call_console_drivers()
>        spin_lockA()
> 
> This would be a deadlock. CPU0 would wait for the lock A.
> While CPU1 would own the lockA and would wait for CPU0
> to finish calling the console drivers and pass the console_sem
> owner.
> 
> But if the above is true than the following scenario was
> already possible before:
> 
> CPU0
> 
> spin_lockA()
>    printk()
>      console_unlock()
>        call_console_drivers()
> 	spin_lockA()
> 
> By other words, this deadlock was there even before. Such
> deadlocks are prevented by using printk_deferred() in
> the sections guarded by the lock A.

Hello,

I didn't see what you did, at the last version. You were
tring to transfer the semaphore owner and make it taken
over. I see.

But, what I mentioned last time is still valid. See below.

> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> [pmladek@...e.com: Commit message about possible deadlocks]
> ---
>   kernel/printk/printk.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index b9006617710f..7e6459abba43 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/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, int level,
>   		 * 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_);
> +				/* Owner will clear console_waiter on hand off */
> +				while (READ_ONCE(console_waiter))
> +					cpu_relax();
> +
> +				spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);

Why don't you move this over "while (READ_ONCE(console_waiter))" and
right after acquire()?

As I said last time, only acquisitions between acquire() and release()
are meaningful. Are you taking care of acquisitions within cpu_relax()?
If so, leave it.

> +				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_);
> +				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 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>   		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_);
> +
>   		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_);

Why don't you move this over "if (waiter)"?

> +
>   		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_);

Why don't you remove this release() after relocating the upper one?

> +		/*
> +		 * Hand off console_lock to waiter. The waiter will perform
> +		 * the up(). After this, the waiter is the console_lock owner.
> +		 */
> +		mutex_release(&console_lock_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> +		printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> +		/* Note, if waiter is set, logbuf_lock is not held */
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>   	console_locked = 0;
>   
>   	/* Release the exclusive_console once it is used */
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists