[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878syj22r5.fsf@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:15:42 +0100
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Wang <wonderfly@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation
On 2019-02-13, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
>> - console_flush_on_panic() currently is a NOP. It is pretty clear how
>> this could be implemented if atomic_write was available. But if no
>> such console is registered, it is not clear what should be done. Is
>> this function really even needed?
>
> If you now rely on a fully preemptible printk kthread to flush
> pending logbuf messages, then console_flush_on_panic() is your
> only chance to see those pending logbuf messages on the serial
> console when the system dies.
Anything critical would have already been immediately print to the
emergency consoles. And if an emergency console was available,
console_flush_on_panic() could be a special case where _all_ unseen
messages (regardless of importance) are printed to the emergency
console.
> Non-atomic consoles should become atomic once you call bust_spinlocks(1),
> this is what we currently have:
>
> panic()
> bust_spinlocks(1) // sets oops_in_progress
> console_flush_on_panic()
> call_console_drivers()
> -> serial_driver_write()
> if (oops_in_progress)
> locked = spin_trylock_irqsave(&port->lock);
> uart_console_write();
> if (locked)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock);
I don't like bust_spinlocks() because drivers end up implementing
oops_in_progress with exactly that... ignoring their own locks. I prefer
consoles are provided with a locking mechanism that they can use to
support a separate NMI-safe write function. My series introduces
console_atomic_lock() for exactly this purpose.
But this doesn't help here. Here we are talking about a crashing system
that does _not_ have an emergency console. And in this case I would say
messages would be lost (just like they are now if all you have is a vt
console and it was busy).
I suppose we could keep the current bust_spinlocks() stuff for the
special case that there are no emergency consoles available. It's better
than nothing, but also not really reliable. Preferrably we figure out
how to implement write_atomic for all console drivers.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists