[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqcY+NonkxDkZyVV@alley>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:01:12 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 8e274732115f ("printk: extend console_lock for per-console
locking")
On Sun 2022-06-12 18:09:10, John Ogness wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for looking into this! I am currently on vacation with family, so
> my responses are limited. Some initial comments from me below...
>
> On 2022-06-12, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > And the patch below takes care of things in (admittedly quite light)
> > testing thus far. What it does is add ten seconds of pure delay
> > before rcutorture shuts down the system. Presumably, this delay gives
> > printk() the time that it needs to flush its buffers. In the
> > configurations that I have tested thus far, anyway.
> >
> > So what should I be doing instead?
> >
> > o console_flush_on_panic() seems like strong medicine, but might
> > be the right thing to do. The bit about proceeding even though
> > it failed to acquire the lock doesn't look good for non-panic
> > use.
>
> For sure not this one.
>
> > o printk_trigger_flush() has an attractive name, but it looks
> > like it only just starts the flush rather than waiting for it
> > to finish.
>
> Correct. It just triggers.
>
> > o pr_flush(1000, true) looks quite interesting, and also seems to
> > work in a few quick tests, so I will continue playing with that.
>
> This is only useful if the context is guaranteed may_sleep().
>
> What is _supposed_ to happen is that @system_state increases above
> SYSTEM_RUNNING, which then causes direct printing to be used. So the
> pr_emerg("Power down\n") in kernel_power_off() would directly flush all
> remaining messages.
>
> But if the threaded printers are already in the process of printing,
> they block direct printing. That may be what we are seeing here.
>
> What I find particularly interesting is that it is not the kthread-patch
> that is causing the issue.
Yes, it is interesting :-)
I think that it is because the initial kthreads allowed to handover
console_lock() to another caller. It was removed when kthreads
started using the new con->lock mutex.
This might also be the reason why the extra
console_lock()/console_unlock() helped.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists