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 S1757097AbbE2UqX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 May 2015 16:46:23 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:56192 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751139AbbE2UqP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 May 2015 16:46:15 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:46:13 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Dave Anderson <anderson@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com>,
        peifeiyue@huawei.com, dzickus@redhat.com, morgan.wang@huawei.com,
        sasha.levin@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] printk: Try harder to get logbuf_lock on NMI
Message-Id: <20150529134613.491b451c712de0c90c42bf10@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150529105607.GG3135@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <1432557993-20458-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.cz>
	<1432557993-20458-3-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.cz>
	<20150527161409.c1c37d25af1c09c340bd04a3@linux-foundation.org>
	<20150528135054.GF3135@pathway.suse.cz>
	<20150528130944.9dde0f591a18d656f2a7c519@linux-foundation.org>
	<20150529105607.GG3135@pathway.suse.cz>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:56:07 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz> wrote:

> > > +	/* try hard to get the lock but do not wait forever */
> > > +	start_time = cpu_clock(this_cpu);
> > > +	current_time = start_time;
> > > +	while (current_time - start_time < TRY_LOCKBUF_LOCK_MAX_DELAY_NS) {
> > > +		if (raw_spin_trylock(&logbuf_lock))
> > > +			return 1;
> > > +		cpu_relax();
> > > +		current_time = cpu_clock(this_cpu);
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > That CPU is now going to spin around for 100us and then time out.
> 
> Yes, there was a deadlock without the patch. So, limited spinning is
> still a win.
> 
> Or would you like to detect the deadlock immediately in all cases?
> I mean to add the proposed wrapper around take/release lock calls
> and set/test some cpu-specific variable there?

Yes.  Pointlessly spinning in NMI for 100us is bad.

> It sounds interesting. Well, the detection will not be 100% correct
> because there is a small race window between taking @logbuf_lock
> and setting @lockbuf_cpu. I wonder if it is worth doing. But I will
> do it if you want.

You might be able to do something with checking logbuf_cpu within the
loop to avoid the worst-case scenarios.