[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDZ8FoOeyYNHYnYh@alley>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:30 +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,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 12/18] printk: nobkl: Add printer thread wakeups
On Thu 2023-03-02 21:02:12, John Ogness wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> Add a function to wakeup the printer threads. Use the new function
> when:
>
> - records are added to the printk ringbuffer
> - consoles are started
> - consoles are resumed
>
> The actual waking is performed via irq_work so that the wakeup can
> be triggered from any context.
>
> --- a/include/linux/console.h
> +++ b/include/linux/console.h
> @@ -317,6 +318,7 @@ struct cons_context_data;
> * @thread_pbufs: Pointer to thread private buffer
> * @kthread: Pointer to kernel thread
> * @rcuwait: RCU wait for the kernel thread
> + * @irq_work: IRQ work for thread wakeup
I would call this irq_wakeup_work, wakeup_work, or kthread_wakeup_work.
> * @kthread_waiting: Indicator whether the kthread is waiting to be woken
> * @write_atomic: Write callback for atomic context
> * @write_thread: Write callback for printk threaded printing
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -3226,9 +3237,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_stop);
>
> void console_start(struct console *console)
> {
> + short flags;
> +
> console_list_lock();
> console_srcu_write_flags(console, console->flags | CON_ENABLED);
> + flags = console->flags;
> console_list_unlock();
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that all SRCU list walks have completed. The related
> + * printing context must be able to see it is enabled so that
> + * it is guaranteed to wake up and resume printing.
> + */
> + synchronize_srcu(&console_srcu);
Either this is needed only when the console is CON_NO_BKL or
it was needed even before this patchset.
I not sure if we need it at all. It will help only for not-yet-started
SRCU walks. But they should see the change because the modification
was done under console_list_lock(). It should provide some
memory barrier against srcu_read_lock(). But maybe I do not understand
the srcu_read_lock() guarantees completely.
> +
> + if (flags & CON_NO_BKL)
> + cons_kthread_wake(console);
> +
> __pr_flush(console, 1000, true);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_start);
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk_nobkl.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk_nobkl.c
> @@ -1368,6 +1368,37 @@ static int cons_kthread_func(void *__console)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * cons_irq_work - irq work to wake printk thread
> + * @irq_work: The irq work to operate on
> + */
> +static void cons_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
> +{
> + struct console *con = container_of(irq_work, struct console, irq_work);
> +
> + cons_kthread_wake(con);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * cons_wake_threads - Wake up printing threads
> + *
> + * A printing thread is only woken if it is within the @kthread_waiting
> + * block. If it is not within the block (or enters the block later), it
> + * will see any new records and continue printing on its own.
> + */
> +void cons_wake_threads(void)
> +{
> + struct console *con;
> + int cookie;
> +
> + cookie = console_srcu_read_lock();
> + for_each_console_srcu(con) {
> + if (con->kthread && atomic_read(&con->kthread_waiting))
I studied the code more. And I think that the custom con->kthread_waiting
is not need with this approach. IMHO, rcuwait_active() would do
the same job.
IMHO, this is supposed to do the same optimization as
wq_has_sleeper(&log_wait) in __wake_up_klogd().
That said, we need to add smp_wmb() before rcuwait_active().
It is already bundled in wq_has_sleeper() but not in
rcuwait_active().
> + irq_work_queue(&con->irq_work);
> + }
> + console_srcu_read_unlock(cookie);
Note that this solution would require blocking and canceling
the irq_work before stopping the kthread, see
https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZC5+Hn0bOhMrVci6@alley
Alternative solution would be to have a global printk_kthread_waiting
atomic counter and move the SRCU read lock into the IRQ context.
I mean something like:
atomic_t printk_kthread_waiting = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
void cons_thread_wakeup_func(struct irq_work *irq_work)
{
struct console *con;
int cookie;
cookie = console_srcu_read_lock();
for_each_console_srcu(con) {
/* The kthread is started later during boot. */
if (!con->kthread)
continue;
/*
* Make sure that the record was written before we
* wake up the kthread so that
* cons_kthread_should_wakeup() will see it.
*
* It pairs with the implicit barrier in
* rcuwait_wait_event().
smp_mb();
if (!rcuwait_active(&con->rcuwait))
continue;
cons_kthread_wake(con);
}
}
void cons_wake_threads(void)
{
/*
* Make sure that the record is stored before checking
* printk_thread_waiting. So that the kthread will
* either see it when checking cons_kthread_should_wakeup().
* Or the check below will see the printk_thread_waiting
* counter incremented.
*
* The corresponding barrier is in cons_kthread_func()
*/
smp_mb();
if (atomic_read(&printk_thread_waiting))
irq_work_queue(cons_thread_wakeup_work);
}
and finally:
static int cons_kthread_func(void *__console)
{
[...]
for (;;) {
atomic_inc(&printk_thread_waiting);
/*
* Synchronize against cons_wake_threads().
*
* Make sure that either cons_wake_threads() will see
* that we are going to wait. Or we will see the new
* record that was stored before cons_wake_threads()
* was called.
*/
smp_mb();
/*
* Provides a full memory barrier against rcuwait_active()
* check in cons_thread_wakeup_func().
*/
ret = rcuwait_wait_event(&con->rcuwait,
cons_kthread_should_wakeup(con, ctxt),
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
atomic_dec(&printk_kthread_waiting);
[...]
}
Note that printk_kthread_waiting counter is need in this case because
we do not have a global wait queue. And we could not have a global one
because rcuwait provides supports only a single task. White the
classic waitqueue supports more tasks via struct wait_queue_head.
Difference between the two solutions:
+ Original solution should not need con->kthread_waiting
in the end. But we will only need to make sure that the irq_work
can't and is not longer be scheduled when stopping
the kthread.
+ The alternative solution is is easier against removing
a console because the srcu list is walked in the irq_work.
But it would require the global printk_kthread_waiting
counter because rcuwait supports only one task and we
need to check if any task is waiting.
The advantage of the alternative solution might be
that srcu_read_lock() would be needed only when there is
any waiting kthread. I am not sure how important it is
to reduce the number of srcu read locked contexts.
I do not really have any preferences.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists