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 S1751952AbcCUAma (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:42:30 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:34732 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751392AbcCUAm1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:42:27 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:43:47 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Message-ID: <20160321004347.GA563@swordfish>
References: <1458483191-3596-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1458483191-3596-2-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160321000647.GP5220@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160321000647.GP5220@X58A-UD3R>
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 (03/21/16 09:06), Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:13:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > +	if (!sync_print) {
> > +		if (in_sched) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * @in_sched messages may come too early, when we don't
> > +			 * yet have @printk_kthread. We can't print deferred
> > +			 * messages directly, because this may deadlock, route
> > +			 * them via IRQ context.
> > +			 */
> > +			__this_cpu_or(printk_pending,
> > +					PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> > +			irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> > +		} else if (printk_kthread && !in_panic) {
> > +			/* Offload printing to a schedulable context. */
> > +			wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> 
> It will not print the "lockup suspected" message at all, for e.g. rq->lock,
> p->pi_lock and any locks which are used within wake_up_process().

this will switch to old SYNC printk() mode should such a lockup ever
happen, which is a giant advantage over any other implementation; doing
wake_up_process() within the 'we can detect recursive printk() here'
gives us better control.

why
  printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ...
is better?


> Furtheremore, any printk() within wake_up_process() cannot work at all, as
> well.

there is printk_deferred() which has LOGLEVEL_SCHED and which must be used
in sched functions.

	-ss