On 2016年04月08日 13:29, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/08/16 12:04), Pan Xinhui wrote:
> [..]
>>> +/*
>>> + * Init async printk via late_initcall, after core/arch/device/etc.
>>> + * initialization.
>>> + */
>>> +static __init int init_printk_kthread(void)
>>> +{
>>> + printk_initcall_done = true;
>>> + return __init_printk_kthread();
>> hello,
>>
>> One confusion, Why not use a lock to protect __init_printk_kthread from
>> parallel call? Otherwise I think there is a race.
>> But for simplicity, maybe you could write codes as below.
>>
>> + int ret = __init_printk_kthread();
>> + printk_initcall_done = true;
>> + return ret;
>>
>> In my opinion, using a lock is better.
>
> Hello,
>
> I though about this, but isn't late_initcall() happening before kernel
> starts /sbin/init? who can race with
>
> late_initcall() -> init_printk_kthread() -> __init_printk_kthread()?
>
yep, you are right. I made a mistake.
> looking at
>
> static int __ref kernel_init(void *unused)
> {
> int ret;
>
> kernel_init_freeable();
> /* need to finish all async __init code before freeing the memory */
> async_synchronize_full();
> free_initmem();
> ..
>
> if (!try_to_run_init_process("/sbin/init") ||
> !try_to_run_init_process("/etc/init") ||
> !try_to_run_init_process("/bin/init") ||
> !try_to_run_init_process("/bin/sh"))
> return 0;
>
> __init (and init_printk_kthread is __init) is finished and freed by the
> time kernel try_to_run_init_process. isn't it?
>
>
good explanation. thanks
> sysfs knob -> __init_printk_kthread() is protected by printk_sync_lock
> mutex, obviously there can be parallel calls from user space.
>
> -ss
>
