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 S1752342AbcCVFv0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:51:26 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:34907 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751201AbcCVFvU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:51:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:52:43 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        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, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Message-ID: <20160322055243.GA1759@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>
 <20160321004347.GA563@swordfish>
 <20160321005608.GQ5220@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321073507.GA501@swordfish>
 <20160321080751.GA2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321084743.GB2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321092848.GB504@swordfish>
 <20160322021343.GC2279@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160322021343.GC2279@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 (03/22/16 11:13), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]

what about a "normal" case, when things are not going to explode printk(),
but we have several lockups on the same lock (which is probably more
likely than printk recursion)?

suppose:
- there are 8 CPUs on the system
- 1 cpus owns the spin_lock for too long
- 4 cpus are trying to lock the spin_lock w/o any success
- so all 4 trigger spin_dump.

what we have at the moment, is that all 4 CPUs will report a lockup,
but with this static pointer only X (between 1 and 4, depending on the
timing; on how fast spin_dump() will return (logbuf lock can
be busy for a while); etc.) CPUs will do so.

	-ss