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 S1758244AbcCVCS2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:18:28 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:50710 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750852AbcCVCS1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:18:27 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:18:24 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@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
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Message-ID: <20160322021824.GD2279@X58A-UD3R>
References: <20160321004347.GA563@swordfish>
 <20160321005608.GQ5220@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321073507.GA501@swordfish>
 <20160321080751.GA2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321084743.GB2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321092848.GB504@swordfish>
 <20160321143212.GK30819@quack.suse.cz>
 <20160321145832.GA545@swordfish>
 <20160321153305.GA31279@quack.suse.cz>
 <20160321171105.GA1809@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160321171105.GA1809@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:11:05AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/21/16 16:33), Jan Kara wrote:
> [..]
> > > > And by calling wake_up_process() under logbuf_lock, you actually introduce
> > > > recursion issues for printk_deferred() messages which are supposed to be
> > > > working from under rq->lock and similar. So I think you have to keep this
> > > > section outside of logbuf_lock.
> > > 
> > > hm, in_sched (printk_deferred()) messages are printed by
> > > irq work->wake_up_klogd_work_func(), not by wake_up_process()
> > > from vprintk_emit(). or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Think of following:
> > 
> > some function
> >   printk()
> >     vprintk_emit()
> >       spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> >       ...
> >       wake_up_process()
> >         printk_deferred()
> >           vprintk_emit() -> recursion on logbuf_lock
> 
> uh, indeed. I was more concerned about printk() calls that are
> troublemakers and are already in wake_up_process() - spin_dump()s.
> but yes, braking printk_deferred() in this case is a regression.

Already said any kind of printk() cannot work within logbuf_lock. :-(

> thanks for pointing that out. and also thanks to Byungchul.

My pleasure.