On (12/22/16 18:10), Petr Mladek wrote:
...
> There are many callers. I think that such wrappers make sense.
> I would only like to keep naming scheme similar to the classic
> locks. I mean:
>
> printk_safe_enter_irq()
> printk_safe_exit_irq()
>
> printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags)
> printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags)
sure.
> and
>
> logbuf_lock_irq()
> logbuf_unlock_irq()
>
> logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags)
> logbuf_lock_irqrestore(flags)
ok.
> I actually like this change. It makes it clear that the operation
> has a side effect (disables/enables irq) which was not visible
> from the original name.
agree.
> Well, I wonder how many times we need to call printk_save_enter/exit
> standalone (ouside these macros).
not every switch to printk_safe is "dictated" by logbuf_lock.
down_trylock_console_sem(), for instance, takes semaphore spin_lock
which already may be locked on the same CPU (*), so we need to be
in safe mode:
vprintk_emit()
down_trylock()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
...
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
spin_dump()
printk()
vprintk_emit()
down_trylock()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags) << deadlock
and so on. IOW, "printk_save_enter()" != "logbuf_lock is acquired".
> The question is if we really need all the variants of
> printk_safe_enter()/exit(). Alternative solution would be
> to handle only the printk_context in pritnk_safe_enter()
> and make sure that it is called with IRQs disabled.
> I mean to define only __printk_safe_enter()/exit()
> and do:
>
> #define logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags) \
> do { \
> local_irq_save(flags) \
> __printk_safe_enter(); \
> raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock); \
> } while (0)
won't do the trick for console sem spin_lock.
[..]
> PS: I still think if we could come with a better name than
> printk_safe() but I cannot find one.
well, not that I'm the fan of printk_safe name, but can't think
of anything better. we make printk calls safe (deadlock safe) in
places where previously it was unsafe... quick-&-dirty name that
is implementation-specific -- printk_percpu_enter/exit, or
printk_pcpu_enter/exit... dunno.
-ss
