[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180226063735.GC12539@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:37:35 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Relocate wake_klogd check close to the end of
console_unlock()
On (02/19/18 17:01), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> - raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> retry = console_seq != log_next_seq;
> + /*
> + * Check whether userland needs notification. Do this only when really
> + * leaving to avoid race with console_trylock_spinning().
> + */
> + if (seen_seq != log_next_seq && !retry) {
> + wake_klogd = true;
> + seen_seq = log_next_seq;
> + }
Let's add the "why" part. This "!retry" might be hard to understand. We
are looking at
- CPUa is about to leave console_unlock()
- printk on CPUb appends a new message
- CPUa detects that `console_seq != log_next_seq', updates `seen_seq'
- printk on CPUb is getting preempted
- CPUa re-takes the console_sem via retry path
- printk CPUb is becoming TASK_RUNNING again - it now spins for console_sem,
since we have an active console_sem owner
- CPUa detects that there is a console_sem waiter, so it offloads the
printing task, without ever waking up klogd
Either we can have that complex "seen_seq != log_next_seq && !retry"
check - or we simply can add
if (console_lock_spinning_disable_and_check()) {
printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
if (wake_klogd)
wake_up_klogd();
}
to the offloading return path.
The later is *may be* simpler to follow. The rule is: every
!console_suspend and !cant-use-consoles return path from console_unlock()
must wake_up_klogd() [if needed].
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists