[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X9Cq9SMaCy3lGhXJ@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:46:13 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.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: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64_t
On (20/12/09 18:22), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >
> > Please put on your eye cancer gear and inspect the atomic implementation
> > of PA-RISC, Sparc32, feh, I forgot who else.
> >
> > Those SMP capable architectures are gifted with just one XCHG like
> > atomic instruction :/ Anyway, as said in the other email, they also
> > don't have NMIs so it mostly works.
PeterZ, thanks for the pointers!
> Hmm, wow. OK, I definitely want to look further.
>
> When some CONFIG_DEBUG_FOO_BAR code wants to pr_err from prb->atomic_op
> on those archs then we deadlock in printk once again?
E.g. arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c
spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE];
atomic_foo()
{
spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
...
spin_unlock_irqrestore(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags);
}
So another potential re-entry path is
atomic_foo()
spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
printk()
prb()
atomic_foo()
spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
which can deadlock, in theory, if both atomics HASH to the same
key (same spin_lock).
I wonder what else am I missing.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists