[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180530095504.GD12230@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:55:04 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: drop in_nmi check from
printk_safe_flush_on_panic()
On (05/30/18 10:48), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/panic.c b/kernel/panic.c
> > index 42e487488554..98a0493a59d3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> > * after setting panic_cpu) from invoking panic() again.
> > */
> > local_irq_disable();
> > + __printk_safe_enter();
>
> I understand why you came with it but I am against this change without
> a proper research. This would redirect too valuable messages into
> a buffer of a limited size and postpone flushing them to the consoles.
>
> We would need to really carefully compare chances where this would
> help and where it would make things worse. There is a high chance
> that we could come with a better solution once we have the analyze.
I agree, sure.
The thing is, we, in fact, already invoke panic() in printk_safe mode.
Sometimes.
Namely,
nmi_panic() -> panic()
is invoked while we are in printk_nmi(), so all printk()-s go
to the per-CPU buffers. So, at least to some extent, panic()
in printk_safe context is not something never seen before. Just
saying.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists