linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	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 v4 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:11:30 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160318071130.GA19655@swordfish> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160318054913.GN5220@X58A-UD3R>

On (03/18/16 14:49), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145750373530161
> 
> I checked it now. Do you mean the wake_up_process() introduced in the new
> patch in console_unlock()? If so, I also think it does not make a deadlock,
> just can make a recursion in the worst case. I thought it was the
> wake_up_process() in up() which is eventually called from console_unlock().
> A deadlock can happen with the wake_up_proces() in up(). :-)

I'm not addressing already existing problems here. I'm trying to
minimise the impact of new code only.

[..]
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> index fd24588..30559c6 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> @@ -138,14 +138,25 @@ static void __spin_lock_debug(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
>  	u64 i;
>  	u64 loops = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
> +	static raw_spinlock_t *suspected_lock = NULL;

this has no chances to survive on SMP systems that have spin_lockup-ed on at
least two different spin locks.

I'd really prefer not to mix-in spin_dump/printk recursion problems into this
patch set. it makes sense not to make printk recursion detection worse due to
newly added spin_locks to vprintk_emit(), but that's it. this patch set set is
fixing other things in the first place.

	-ss

>  	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
>  		if (arch_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
>  			return;
>  		__delay(1);
>  	}
> -	/* lockup suspected: */
> -	spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * When we suspect a lockup, it's good enough to inform it once for
> +	 * the same lock. Otherwise it could cause an infinite recursion if
> +	 * it's within printk().
> +	 */
> +	if (suspected_lock != lock) {
> +		suspected_lock = lock;
> +		/* lockup suspected: */
> +		spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
> +		suspected_lock = NULL;
> +	}
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  	trigger_all_cpu_backtrace();
>  #endif
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-18  7:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-14 14:13 [RFC][PATCH v4 0/2] printk: Make printk() completely async Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-14 14:13 ` [RFC][PATCH v4 1/2] " Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-15 10:03   ` Jan Kara
2016-03-15 14:07     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-16  5:39       ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-16  6:58         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-16  7:30           ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-16  7:56             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-16 10:34               ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-17  0:34                 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-18  5:49                   ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-18  7:11                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2016-03-18  8:23                       ` byungchul.park
2016-03-16  7:00         ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-16  7:07           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-15 15:58   ` Petr Mladek
2016-03-16  2:01     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-16  2:10       ` Byungchul Park
2016-03-16  2:31         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-14 14:13 ` [RFC][PATCH v4 2/2] printk: Skip messages on oops Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-03-17 10:56   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-04-23 19:36 ` [RFC][PATCH v4 0/2] printk: Make printk() completely async Pavel Machek
2016-04-24  5:03   ` 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=20160318071130.GA19655@swordfish \
    --to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.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).