From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
yuwang.yuwang@alibabab-inc.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:48:22 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171127084822.GA15859@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171108102723.602216b1@gandalf.local.home>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:27:23AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> --- linux-trace.git.orig/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ linux-trace.git/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -86,8 +86,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(console_drivers);
> static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
> .name = "console_lock"
> };
> +static struct lockdep_map console_owner_dep_map = {
> + .name = "console_owner"
> +};
> #endif
>
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(console_owner_lock);
> +static struct task_struct *console_owner;
> +static bool console_waiter;
> +
> enum devkmsg_log_bits {
> __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON = 0,
> __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF,
> @@ -1753,8 +1760,56 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility
> * semaphore. The release will print out buffers and wake up
> * /dev/kmsg and syslog() users.
> */
> - if (console_trylock())
> + if (console_trylock()) {
> console_unlock();
> + } else {
> + struct task_struct *owner = NULL;
> + bool waiter;
> + bool spin = false;
> +
> + printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + owner = READ_ONCE(console_owner);
> + waiter = READ_ONCE(console_waiter);
> + if (!waiter && owner && owner != current) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(console_waiter, true);
> + spin = true;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is an active printk() writing to the
> + * consoles, instead of having it write our data too,
> + * see if we can offload that load from the active
> + * printer, and do some printing ourselves.
> + * Go into a spin only if there isn't already a waiter
> + * spinning, and there is an active printer, and
> + * that active printer isn't us (recursive printk?).
> + */
> + if (spin) {
> + /* We spin waiting for the owner to release us */
> + spin_acquire(&console_owner_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
Hello Steven,
I think it would be better to use cross-release stuff here, because the
waiter waits for an event which happens in another context.
> + /* Owner will clear console_waiter on hand off */
> + while (READ_ONCE(console_waiter))
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> + printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * The owner passed the console lock to us.
> + * Since we did not spin on console lock, annotate
> + * this as a trylock. Otherwise lockdep will
> + * complain.
> + */
> + mutex_acquire(&console_lock_dep_map, 0, 1, _THIS_IP_);
I'm afraid if it's ok even not to lock(or trylock) actually here. Is there
any problem if you call console_trylock() instead of mutex_acquire() here?
> + console_unlock();
> + printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> + }
> + printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> +
> + }
> }
>
> return printed_len;
> @@ -2141,6 +2196,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> static u64 seen_seq;
> unsigned long flags;
> bool wake_klogd = false;
> + bool waiter = false;
> bool do_cond_resched, retry;
>
> if (console_suspended) {
> @@ -2229,14 +2285,64 @@ skip:
> console_seq++;
> raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>
> + /*
> + * While actively printing out messages, if another printk()
> + * were to occur on another CPU, it may wait for this one to
> + * finish. This task can not be preempted if there is a
> + * waiter waiting to take over.
> + */
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + console_owner = current;
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /* The waiter may spin on us after setting console_owner */
> + spin_acquire(&console_owner_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
If you want to do this speculatively here, I think it would be better to
use a read recursive acquisition. I think spin_acquire() is too stong
for that purpose - I also mentioned it on workqueue flush code. Don't
you think so?
> +
> stop_critical_timings(); /* don't trace print latency */
> call_console_drivers(ext_text, ext_len, text, len);
> start_critical_timings();
> +
> + raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> + waiter = READ_ONCE(console_waiter);
> + console_owner = NULL;
> + raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is a waiter waiting for us, then pass the
> + * rest of the work load over to that waiter.
> + */
> + if (waiter)
> + break;
> +
> + /* There was no waiter, and nothing will spin on us here */
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
I think this release() can be moved up over 'if (waiter)' because only
waiters within the region between acquire() and release() are meaningful.
> +
> printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
>
> if (do_cond_resched)
> cond_resched();
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * If there is an active waiter waiting on the console_lock.
> + * Pass off the printing to the waiter, and the waiter
> + * will continue printing on its CPU, and when all writing
> + * has finished, the last printer will wake up klogd.
> + */
> + if (waiter) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(console_waiter, false);
> + /* The waiter is now free to continue */
> + spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
So this can be removed.
Thanks,
Byungchul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-27 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-08 15:27 [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Steven Rostedt
2017-11-09 10:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-09 10:22 ` [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to loadbalance " Tetsuo Handa
2017-11-09 10:26 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-09 11:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-11-09 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-09 12:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-11-24 15:54 ` [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance " Petr Mladek
2017-11-24 15:58 ` Petr Mladek
2017-11-27 8:53 ` Byungchul Park
2017-11-28 1:42 ` Byungchul Park
2017-12-08 14:00 ` Petr Mladek
2017-12-12 5:39 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-12-12 19:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-13 1:50 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-12-14 14:34 ` Petr Mladek
2017-12-14 13:51 ` Petr Mladek
2017-11-27 8:48 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-11-28 6:23 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-12-22 10:31 ` Petr Mladek
2017-12-22 12:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-01-10 12:50 ` Petr Mladek
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=20171127084822.GA15859@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=yuwang.yuwang@alibabab-inc.com \
/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).