From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.com, pmladek@suse.com,
tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:52:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160307105248.GF5201@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160307101233.GA10690@swordfish>
On Mon 07-03-16 19:12:33, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (03/07/16 09:22), Jan Kara wrote:
> [..]
> > > hm, just for note, none of system-wide wqs seem to have a ->rescuer thread
> > > (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM).
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > Even if you use printk_wq with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for printing_work work item,
> > > > printing_work_func() will not be called until current work item calls
> > > > schedule_timeout_*(). That will be an undesirable random delay. If you use
> > > > a dedicated kernel thread rather than a dedicated workqueue with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM,
> > > > we can avoid this random delay.
> > >
> > > hm. yes, seems that it may take some time until workqueue wakeup() a ->rescuer thread.
> > > need to look more.
> >
> > Yes, it takes some time (0.1s or 2 jiffies) before workqueue code gives up
> > creating a worker process and wakes up rescuer thread. However I don't see
> > that as a problem...
>
> yes, that's why I asked Tetsuo whether his concern was a wq's MAYDAY timer
> delay. the two commits that Tetsuo pointed at earlier in he loop (373ccbe59270
> and 564e81a57f97) solved the problem by switching to WQ_MEM_RECLAIM wq.
> I've slightly tested OOM-kill on my desktop system and haven't spotted any
> printk delays (well, a test on desktop is not really representative, of
> course).
>
>
> the only thing that so far grabbed my attention - is
>
> __this_cpu_or(printk_pending)
> irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
>
> a _theoretical_ corner case here is when we have only one CPU doing a bunch
> of printk()s and this CPUs disables irqs in advance
> local_irq_save
> for (...)
> printk()
> local_irq_restore()
>
> if no other CPUs see `printk_pending' then nothing will be printed up
> until local_irq_restore() (assuming that IRQ disable time is withing
> the hardlockup detection threshold). if any other CPUs concurrently
> execute printk then we are fine, but
> a) if none -- then we probably have a small change in behaviour
> and
> b) UP systems
So for UP systems, we should by default disable async printing anyway I
suppose. It is just a pointless overhead. So please just make printk_sync
default to true if !CONFIG_SMP.
When IRQs are disabled, you're right we will have a change in behavior. I
don't see an easy way of avoiding delaying of printk until IRQs get
enabled. I don't want to queue work directly because that creates
possibility for lock recursion in queue_work(). And playing some tricks
with irq_works isn't easy either - you cannot actually rely on any other
CPU doing anything (even a timer tick) because of NOHZ.
So if this will be a problem in practice, using a kthread will probably be
the easiest solution.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-07 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-05 10:55 [RFC][PATCH v2 0/2] printk: Make printk() completely async Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-05 10:55 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 1/2] " Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-06 6:32 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-06 7:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-03-06 9:35 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-06 11:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-03-06 13:27 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-06 14:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-03-07 8:22 ` Jan Kara
2016-03-07 10:12 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-07 10:52 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2016-03-07 12:16 ` Jan Kara
2016-03-07 12:37 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-03-07 15:10 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-07 15:49 ` Tejun Heo
2016-03-08 10:21 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-11 17:22 ` Tejun Heo
2016-03-12 5:01 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-09 6:09 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-10 9:27 ` Jan Kara
2016-03-10 15:48 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-10 9:53 ` Petr Mladek
2016-03-10 16:26 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-07 14:40 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-07 11:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-03-07 14:36 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-07 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2016-03-05 10:55 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 2/2] printk: Skip messages on oops Sergey Senozhatsky
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=20160307105248.GF5201@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).