[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fsoh8sub.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:40:36 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions
On 2022-02-15, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> This patch is about how to make it more obvious that this
> API has to be used carefully. I see the following main risks when
> using this API:
>
> + it might cause deadlocks, especially in panic
>
> + it is supposed to be tail lock (no other locks allowed in this
> context)
>
> + it is re-entrant
>
> + it does not prevent parallel (nested) access on the same CPU
I can add more information about the risks to the function documentation
(include/linux/printk.h).
> "get/put" are more acceptable for me. They create at lest some feeling
> that it tries to get something and it might take some time. Even
> thought many "get/put" APIs are not blocking.
OK. So I will keep the naming for the series v2.
> BTW: The API disables IRQ. So the nested access is limited to two
> levels: normal/IRQ and nested NMI contexts.
And there are reentrant call chains. For example, we already have:
nmi_cpu_backtrace()
printk_cpu_sync_get_irqsave(flags);
dump_stack();
printk_cpu_sync_get_irqsave(flags);
__dump_stack(log_lvl);
printk_cpu_sync_put_irqrestore(flags);
printk_cpu_sync_put_irqrestore(flags);
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists