On Mon 21-03-16 18:28:48, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 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.
Actually, this is not true. These locks are already in vprintk_emit() via
the up(&console_sem) call from console_unlock() since up() can call
wake_up() which needs the same locks as wake_up_process().
And by calling wake_up_process() under logbuf_lock, you actually introduce
recursion issues for printk_deferred() messages which are supposed to be
working from under rq->lock and similar. So I think you have to keep this
section outside of logbuf_lock.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
