On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:02 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > + if (!irqs_disabled() && wake_klogd)
> > wake_up_klogd();
>
> This causes a regression .. When printk is called during an OOPS in
> kernels without this change then the OOPS will get logged, since the
> logging process (klogd) is woken to handle the messages.. If you apply
> this change klogd doesn't wakeup, and hence doesn't log the oops.. So if
> you remove the wakeup here you have to add it someplace else to maintain
> the logging ..
>
> (I'm not theorizing here, I have defects logged against this specific
> piece of code..)
It wont get woken up anyway. Did you look at wake_up_klogd?
void wake_up_klogd(void)
{
if (!oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
}
So if oops_in_progress is set, then it still wont get woken. Perhaps it
got woken some other way? Or is oops_in_progress not set in these oops?
One other solution is to make the runqueue locks visible externally. Like:
in sched.c:
int runqueue_is_locked(void)
{
int cpu = get_cpu();
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
int ret;
ret = spin_is_locked(&rq->lock);
put_cpu();
return ret;
}
And in printk we could do:
if (wake_klogd && !runqueue_is_locked())
wake_up_klogd();
This probably is the cleanest solution since it simply prevents the
deadlock from occurring.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
