[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190313021534.GB783@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:15:34 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation
On (03/12/19 16:15), John Ogness wrote:
> > I suggest the following way forward (separate patchsets):
> >
> > 1. Replace log buffer (least controversial thing)
>
> Yes. I will post a series that only implements the ringbuffer using your
> simplified API. That will be enough to remove printk_safe and actually
> does most of the work of updating devkmsg, kmsg_dump, and syslog.
This may _not_ be enough to remove printk_safe. One of the reasons
printk_safe "condom" came into existence was console_sem (which
is a bit too important to ignore it):
printk()
console_trylock()
console_unlock()
up()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
__up()
wake_up_process()
WARN/etc
printk()
console_trylock()
down_trylock()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags) << deadlock
Back then we were looking at
printk->console_sem->lock->printk->console_sem->lock
deadlock report from LG, if I'm not mistaken.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists