From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S941136AbcLWJxz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:53:55 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57992 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S935162AbcLWJxq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:53:46 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 10:53:41 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 6/7] printk: use printk_safe buffers in printk
Message-ID: <20161223095341.GA2541@linux.suse>
References: <20161221143605.2272-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161221143605.2272-7-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161222053119.GE644@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20161222171012.GC14894@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20161223014643.GA637@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161223014643.GA637@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri 2016-12-23 10:46:43, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> not every switch to printk_safe is "dictated" by logbuf_lock.
> down_trylock_console_sem(), for instance, takes semaphore spin_lock
> which already may be locked on the same CPU (*), so we need to be
> in safe mode:
> 
> vprintk_emit()
>  down_trylock()
>   raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
>   ...
>   raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
>    spin_dump()
>     printk()
>      vprintk_emit()
>       down_trylock()
>        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)   << deadlock
> 
> 
> and so on. IOW, "printk_save_enter()" != "logbuf_lock is acquired".

You are right. It seems that the

printk_safe_enter_irq()
printk_safe_exit_irq()

printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags)
printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags)

variants make sense and we will need them together with
the logbuf_lock_*() stuff.

> [..]
> > PS: I still think if we could come with a better name than
> > printk_safe() but I cannot find one.
> 
> well, not that I'm the fan of printk_safe name, but can't think
> of anything better. we make printk calls safe (deadlock safe) in
> places where previously it was unsafe... quick-&-dirty name that
> is implementation-specific -- printk_percpu_enter/exit, or
> printk_pcpu_enter/exit... dunno.

OK, let's stay with printk_safe :-)

Best Reagards,
Petr