From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Correctly handle preemption in console_unlock() Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:28:25 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170114062825.GB699@tigerII.localdomain> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1484313321-17196-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> On (01/13/17 14:15), Petr Mladek wrote: > Some console drivers code calls console_conditional_schedule() > that looks at @console_may_schedule. The value must be cleared > when the drivers are called from console_unlock() with > interrupts disabled. But rescheduling is fine when the same > code is called, for example, from tty operations where the > console semaphore is taken via console_lock(). > > This is why @console_may_schedule is cleared before calling console > drivers. The original value is stored to decide if we could sleep > between lines. > > Now, @console_may_schedule is not cleared when we call > console_trylock() and jump back to the "again" goto label. > This has become a problem, since the commit 6b97a20d3a7909daa066 > ("printk: set may_schedule for some of console_trylock() callers"). so I think I'd prefer to revert that commit. the reason I added the commit in question was to reduce the number of printk() soft lockups that I observed back then. however, it obviously didn't solve all of the printk() problems. now printk() is moving in a completely different direction in term of lockups and deadlocks. there will be no console_trylock() call in vprintk_emit() at all. we will either do console_lock() from scheduleable printk_kthread or console_trylock() from IRQ work. so 6b97a20d3a7909daa066 didn't buy us a lot, and it still doesn't (+ it introduced a bug). apart from that, Tetsuo wasn't really happy with the patch http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg103099.html so let's just return the old behavior back. --- diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c index 7180088cbb23..ddfbd47398f8 100644 --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c @@ -2078,20 +2078,7 @@ int console_trylock(void) return 0; } console_locked = 1; - /* - * When PREEMPT_COUNT disabled we can't reliably detect if it's - * safe to schedule (e.g. calling printk while holding a spin_lock), - * because preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() are just barriers there - * and preempt_count() is always 0. - * - * RCU read sections have a separate preemption counter when - * PREEMPT_RCU enabled thus we must take extra care and check - * rcu_preempt_depth(), otherwise RCU read sections modify - * preempt_count(). - */ - console_may_schedule = !oops_in_progress && - preemptible() && - !rcu_preempt_depth(); + console_may_schedule = 0; return 1; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_trylock);
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Correctly handle preemption in console_unlock() Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 06:28:25 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170114062825.GB699@tigerII.localdomain> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1484313321-17196-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> On (01/13/17 14:15), Petr Mladek wrote: > Some console drivers code calls console_conditional_schedule() > that looks at @console_may_schedule. The value must be cleared > when the drivers are called from console_unlock() with > interrupts disabled. But rescheduling is fine when the same > code is called, for example, from tty operations where the > console semaphore is taken via console_lock(). > > This is why @console_may_schedule is cleared before calling console > drivers. The original value is stored to decide if we could sleep > between lines. > > Now, @console_may_schedule is not cleared when we call > console_trylock() and jump back to the "again" goto label. > This has become a problem, since the commit 6b97a20d3a7909daa066 > ("printk: set may_schedule for some of console_trylock() callers"). so I think I'd prefer to revert that commit. the reason I added the commit in question was to reduce the number of printk() soft lockups that I observed back then. however, it obviously didn't solve all of the printk() problems. now printk() is moving in a completely different direction in term of lockups and deadlocks. there will be no console_trylock() call in vprintk_emit() at all. we will either do console_lock() from scheduleable printk_kthread or console_trylock() from IRQ work. so 6b97a20d3a7909daa066 didn't buy us a lot, and it still doesn't (+ it introduced a bug). apart from that, Tetsuo wasn't really happy with the patch http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg103099.html so let's just return the old behavior back. --- diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c index 7180088cbb23..ddfbd47398f8 100644 --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c @@ -2078,20 +2078,7 @@ int console_trylock(void) return 0; } console_locked = 1; - /* - * When PREEMPT_COUNT disabled we can't reliably detect if it's - * safe to schedule (e.g. calling printk while holding a spin_lock), - * because preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() are just barriers there - * and preempt_count() is always 0. - * - * RCU read sections have a separate preemption counter when - * PREEMPT_RCU enabled thus we must take extra care and check - * rcu_preempt_depth(), otherwise RCU read sections modify - * preempt_count(). - */ - console_may_schedule = !oops_in_progress && - preemptible() && - !rcu_preempt_depth(); + console_may_schedule = 0; return 1; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_trylock);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-14 6:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-01-13 13:15 [PATCH] printk: Correctly handle preemption in console_unlock() Petr Mladek 2017-01-13 13:15 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-13 16:05 ` Steven Rostedt 2017-01-13 16:05 ` Steven Rostedt 2017-01-16 11:00 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 11:00 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-18 5:45 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-18 5:45 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-18 7:21 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-18 7:21 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-25 12:34 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-25 12:34 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-14 6:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message] 2017-01-14 6:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 11:38 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 11:38 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 11:58 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 11:58 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 12:48 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 12:48 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 13:26 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 13:26 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 13:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 13:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 14:14 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 14:14 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 15:19 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 15:19 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 15:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 15:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky 2017-01-16 16:35 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 16:35 ` Petr Mladek 2017-01-16 13:41 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-01-16 13:41 ` Tetsuo Handa
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170114062825.GB699@tigerII.localdomain \ --to=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jslaby@suse.cz \ --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=pmladek@suse.com \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.