From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v3 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:46:02 +0206 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877diund1p.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMnenOBTUclLld9i@alley>
On 2021-06-16, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>> With this series version I moved the tracking into a global variable
>> @printk_cpulock_nested, which is fine, except that a boolean is not
>> capable of tracking more than 1 nesting. Which means that
>> __printk_cpu_unlock() would release cpu lock ownership too soon.
>>
>> Doing this correctly is a simple change:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> index e67dc510fa1b..5376216e4f3d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -3535,7 +3535,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kmsg_dump_rewind);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> static atomic_t printk_cpulock_owner = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
>> -static bool printk_cpulock_nested;
>> +static atomic_t printk_cpulock_nested = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>
>> /**
>> * __printk_wait_on_cpu_lock() - Busy wait until the printk cpu-reentrant
>> @@ -3596,7 +3598,7 @@ int __printk_cpu_trylock(void)
>>
>> } else if (old == cpu) {
>> /* This CPU is already the owner. */
>> - printk_cpulock_nested = true;
>> + atomic_inc(&printk_cpulock_nested);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -3613,8 +3615,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__printk_cpu_trylock);
>> */
>> void __printk_cpu_unlock(void)
>> {
>> - if (printk_cpulock_nested) {
>> - printk_cpulock_nested = false;
>> + if (atomic_read(&printk_cpulock_nested)) {
>> + atomic_dec(&printk_cpulock_nested);
>
> I think about handling printk_cpulock_nested with only one
> atomic operation. Something like:
>
> if (atomic_dec_return(&printk_cpulock_level) == 0)
> atomic_set_release(&printk_cpulock_owner, -1);
>
> It would require always incremanting the number in lock, e.g.
>
> old = atomic_cmpxchg(&printk_cpulock_owner, -1, cpu);
> if (old == -1 || old == cpu) {
> atomic_inc(&printk_cpulock_level);
> return 1;
> }
I actually implemented similar code during an internal draft. I later
decided against it, mainly because I prefer to keep the old==-1 and
old==cpu cases separate.
Also note that atomic_dec_return() introduces an unnecessary memory
barrier. If we take your proposed implementation we would use
atomic_dec_return_relaxed() instead.
> But I am not sure if it is really better. Feel free to keep
> your variant.
*sigh* Frankly, I don't care much. My variant saves a few CPU
instructions for the normal case (non-nested), but that probably is not
much of an argument.
For v4 I will keep my variant because it explicitly handles the
non-nested/nested cases separately, which helps when adding the memory
barrier comments in the follow-up patch. In particular, the label
LMM(__printk_cpu_trylock:B), which represents the first moment a new CPU
begins to load/store data, only applies to the old==-1 condition.
John Ogness
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-15 17:49 [PATCH next v3 0/2] introduce printk cpu lock John Ogness
2021-06-15 17:49 ` [PATCH next v3 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c John Ogness
2021-06-15 21:33 ` John Ogness
2021-06-16 7:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-06-16 7:29 ` John Ogness
2021-06-16 11:21 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-16 13:40 ` John Ogness [this message]
2021-06-16 11:55 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-06-15 17:49 ` [PATCH next v3 2/2] printk: fix cpu lock ordering John Ogness
2021-06-16 11:30 ` 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=877diund1p.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).