[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pmoh3yf9.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:18:42 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] printk: Drop console_sem during panic
On 2022-01-21, Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com> wrote:
> If another CPU is in panic, we are about to be halted. Try to gracefully
> drop console_sem and allow the panic CPU to grab it easily.
>
> Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
> ---
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index ca253ac07615..c2dc8ebd9509 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -2668,7 +2668,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>
> for (;;) {
> size_t ext_len = 0;
> - int handover;
> + int handover, pcpu;
> size_t len;
>
> skip:
> @@ -2739,6 +2739,12 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> if (handover)
> return;
>
> + /* Allow panic_cpu to take over the consoles safely */
> + pcpu = atomic_read(&panic_cpu);
> + if (unlikely(pcpu != PANIC_CPU_INVALID &&
> + pcpu != raw_smp_processor_id()))
> + break;
> +
Keep in mind that after the "break", this context will try to re-acquire
the console lock and continue printing. That is a pretty small window
for the panic CPU to attempt a trylock.
Perhaps the retry after the loop should also be avoided for non-panic
CPUs. This would rely on the panic CPU taking over (as your comment
suggests will happen). Since the panic-CPU calls pr_emerg() as the final
record before drifting off to neverland, that is probably OK.
Something like:
@@ -2731,7 +2731,8 @@ void console_unlock(void)
* there's a new owner and the console_unlock() from them will do the
* flush, no worries.
*/
- retry = prb_read_valid(prb, next_seq, NULL);
+ retry = (pcpu != raw_smp_processor_id()) &&
+ prb_read_valid(prb, next_seq, NULL);
if (retry && console_trylock())
goto again;
}
I would also like to see a comment about why it is acceptable to use
raw_smp_processor_id() in a context that has migration
enabled. Something like: raw_smp_processor_id() can be used because this
context cannot be migrated to the panic CPU.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists