[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X8/nWUD1bKeQQ74Z@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:51:37 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: consoles: was: [PATCH next v2 3/3] printk: remove logbuf_lock,
add syslog_lock
On (20/12/07 10:50), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > and then some call into the scheduler
> > (or other kernel core functions) under semaphore's spin_lock.
> > For instance
> >
> > up()
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock)
> > __up()
> > wake_up_process()
> > try_to_wake_up()
>
> This problem is partly solved by printk_deferred(). In each
> case, printk_safe() does not help here.
printk_deferred() has never been used in all the critical code paths.
So I think printk_safe does help here; it takes care of all the
remaining cases, that are not "partly solved by printk_deferred()".
> I still do _not_ see a reason to keep printk_safe()!
Not sure I'm following, sorry. To put it simply - we better keep
printk_safe until "new recursion prevention" >= printk_safe().
In this patch set "new recursion prevention" < printk_safe().
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists