On (03/21/16 17:47), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > Is there any reason why you don't put the wake_up_process() out of the
> > critical section with my suggestion, even though it can solve the infinite
> > recuresion you worried about?
>
> Just to be sure, whether you take my suggestion or not is not important.
> I just suggested it in this thread since it can solve what you worried
> about. That's all. I can post it in another thread though. Why don't you
> consider it so that yours don't miss any printk message? Do you think there
> are any problems in my suggestion?
we have 2 spin locks in vprintk_emit() -- logbuf_lock and sem->lock. and N
CPUs can concurrently lockup on those two locks, which already makes a
single static pointer in spiun_dump() questionable.
logbug_lock *theoretically* can detect and handle recursive printk()s,
there is no way to catch sem->lock spin_dump() at the moment (but that's
not the point).
there are 2 new spin locks in vprintk_emit() -- p->pi_lock and rq->lock.
what I want is to put those locks inside the "we can detect recursion 100%"
region. so these two locks will not add any new possibilities of recursive
printks, they are covered by the existing recursion detection code thanks
to logbuf lock and static logbuf_cpu. so we still can say that we have 5
places where printk recursion can happen
-- lock + unlock logbuf_lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
-- inside of logbuf_lock critical section
printk() recursion detection code works here
-- lock + unlock sem->lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
note how "inside of logbuf_lock critical section" takes care of nested
'lock + unlock p->pi_lock' and 'lock + unlock rq->lock'.
moreover, printk() will switch to synchronous mode in recursion handler and
two misbehaving spin locks (4 places where recursion can happen) will not be
executed anymore.
what you want to have -- 4 independent spin locks and 9 places where
recursion can happen, only 1 of which is covered by printk recursion code.
-- lock + unlock logbuf_lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
-- inside of logbuf_lock critical section
printk() recursion detection code works here
-- lock + unlock p->pi_lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
-- lock + unlock rq->lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
-- lock + unlock sem->lock
printk() recursion detection code can't help here
and there is a static pointer to fix everything up? what if 2
CPUs will simultaneously printk-recurse in 2 different places?
why this is better?
-ss
