[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMswqJ7sV5RCxNim@alley>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:23:20 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v4 0/2] introduce printk cpu lock
On Thu 2021-06-17 11:56:49, John Ogness wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While working on removing the safe buffers for printk [0] we
> stumbled on a cpu-reentrant spinning lock used by dump_stack(). This
> type of lock (dubbed a cpu lock) will cause deadlock risks once we
> introduce atomic consoles because atomic consoles also need such a
> lock.
>
> Although we are not yet ready to introduce atomic consoles, this is
> an appropriate time to provide an official cpu lock to be used for
> all things relating to printk (including the atomic consoles, once
> they are introduced).
>
> An example of cpu lock usage for atomic consoles can be found in the
> PREEMPT_RT tree, such as the serial8250 implementation [1] of an
> atomic console. (In PREEMPT_RT the printk cpu lock function was
> named console_atomic_lock/_unlock.)
>
> This series is against next-20210616.
>
> John Ogness (2):
> lib/dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c
> printk: fix cpu lock ordering
For both patches:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
The patchset is ready for linux-next from my POV. We are getting close
to the merge window so I am going to push it tomorrow. We could always
remove it when anyone has comments the following week.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists