On Wed 2008-01-23 12:27:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes please... this looks like a solution to me.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
