hi, all
        I think you have already known how to reproduce it. Let me still share 
the debug patch to hit this printk issue in several seconds.

+static int auto_printk(void *data)
+{
+       int irq = (int)data;
+       char b[64] = {
+               [0 ... 61] = 'F',
+               '\n',
+               0,
+       };
+
+       int bytes_per_second = 115200/8; //minicom console ratelimit
+       int lines_per_second = bytes_per_second/(sizeof(b)+16);//16 is count of 
extra bytes including log_prefix
+       int lines_with_5sec = lines_per_second * 5;
+       int i = lines_with_5sec;
+
+       if (irq)
+               local_irq_disable();
+       unsigned long j = jiffies;
+       unsigned long k = jiffies;
+       while (i--) {
+               printk("[%1d][%d]%s", irq, i, b);
+               k = jiffies;
+               if (k > j + 5 * HZ) {
+                       printk("XINHUI: long time %d,%d\n", irq, 
irqs_disabled());
+               }
+               j = k;
+       }
+       if (irq)
+               local_irq_enable();
+       return 0;
+}
+static int xh_th(const char *val, struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+       kthread_run(auto_printk, 1, "XH_T1");
+       kthread_run(auto_printk, 0, "XH_T0");
+}
+module_param_call(th, NULL, xh_th, NULL, 0664);
+

thanks
xinhui

On 2015年08月12日 17:37, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix....@intel.com>
> 
> printk can be called in any context, It's very useful to output debug
> info.
> 
> But it might cause very bad issues on some special cases. For example,
> some driver hit errors, and it dumps many messages like reg values, etc.
> 
> Sometimes, printk is called when irqs disabled. This is OKay if there is
> a few messages. But What would happen if many messages outputed by other
> drivers at same time.
> 
> Here is the scenario.
> CPUA                            CPUB
> //driver dumps debug info     local_irq_save(flags);
>                               printk()
>                                  -> console_unlock()
> printk()                            for(;;) {
>  -> log_store() //log_next_seq++
> 
> //many printk() below               if (console_seq == log_next_seq)
>                                          break;
>                                       //did not break in this case
> //no printk() now                   }
>                               local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
> printk runs on CPUA just store the messages in the buf and return.
> printk runs on CPUB(who owns the console_sem lock) would take the duty
> to flush all messages to consoles. It would take a long time to flush
> messages out, IOW, irq would be disabled for a long time. Such case is
> too bad.  We hit many interrupt related panics, for example, cpu did not
> respond to IPI.
> 
> Here is the soultion, if we detect such case above, try to rebalance it.
> Let CPUA take the duty to flush messages to consoles.
> 
> Introduce five states, START, REQUEST, REPLY, ACK, CANCEL.
> Introduce five actions, request, reply, cancel, ack, start.
> Only two kinds of state transition are allowed. They are
> 
> 1)        request         reply        ack        start
>  -> START ------> REQUEST -----> REPLY -----> ACK ----->
> |                                                       |
>  <------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2)        request         cancel        start
>  -> START ------> REQUEST -----> CANCEL ----->
> |                                             |
>  <--------------------------------------------
> 
> To implement the five actions, introduce rebalance_try_request(),
> rebalance_try_reply(), rebalance_try_cancel(), rebalance_try_ack(). As
> action start is always after ack and cancel. rebalance_try_cancel/ack
> would do start as well for simplicity.
> 
> State transition must be performed with logbuf_lock held.
> 
> When we have done the state transition, CPUB who owns the console_sem
> will up rebalance_sem as well. CPUA who is going to take duty fo flush
> messages will down_trylock rebalance_sem. The seqence to up/down two
> sems must be like below, otherwise we might has risks that no one owns
> console_sem to do flush job.
> 
> CPUA                          CPUB
> down_trylock(&rebalance_sem)  up(&console_sem)
>                               up(&rebalance_sem);
> down_trylock(&console_sem);
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix....@intel.com>
> ---
> change from v1:
>       rewrite the patch.
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c | 100 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index cf8c242..1ffbd32 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1652,6 +1652,69 @@ static size_t cont_print_text(char *text, size_t size)
>       return textlen;
>  }
>  
> +#define START        1
> +#define CANCEL       2
> +#define ACK  4
> +#define REQUEST      8
> +#define REPLY        16
> +
> +static struct semaphore rebalance_sem =
> +              __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(rebalance_sem, 0);
> +
> +static inline bool accept(int *v, int s, int *p)
> +{
> +     if (*v & s) {
> +             *p = *v & s;
> +             *v &= ~*p;
> +             return true;
> +     }
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* protected by logbuf_lock*/
> +static bool rebalance(int v)
> +{
> +     static int cur = START;
> +     int pos = cur;
> +     bool ret = 0;
> +
> +     do {
> +             switch (pos) {
> +             case START:
> +                     ret = accept(&v, REQUEST, &pos);
> +                     break;
> +             case CANCEL:
> +                     ret = accept(&v, START, &pos);
> +                     break;
> +             case ACK:
> +                     ret = accept(&v, START, &pos);
> +                     break;
> +             case REQUEST:
> +                     ret = accept(&v, CANCEL | REPLY, &pos);
> +                     break;
> +             case REPLY:
> +                     ret = accept(&v, ACK, &pos);
> +                     break;
> +             default:
> +                     ret = 0;
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +     } while (ret && v);
> +
> +     if (ret)
> +             cur = pos;
> +     return ret;
> +}
> +
> +#define rebalance_try_request()      \
> +     rebalance(REQUEST)
> +#define rebalance_try_reply()                \
> +     rebalance(REPLY)
> +#define rebalance_try_cancel()               \
> +     rebalance(CANCEL)
> +#define rebalance_try_ack()          \
> +     rebalance(ACK | START)
> +
>  asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>                           const char *dict, size_t dictlen,
>                           const char *fmt, va_list args)
> @@ -1667,6 +1730,8 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>       bool in_sched = false;
>       /* cpu currently holding logbuf_lock in this function */
>       static unsigned int logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> +     bool need_rebalance = 0;
> +     bool can_rebalance = !(irqs_disabled() || in_interrupt());
>  
>       if (level == LOGLEVEL_SCHED) {
>               level = LOGLEVEL_DEFAULT;
> @@ -1701,6 +1766,8 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  
>       lockdep_off();
>       raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> +     if (!in_sched && can_rebalance && rebalance_try_reply())
> +             need_rebalance = true;
>       logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
>  
>       if (unlikely(recursion_bug)) {
> @@ -1811,6 +1878,9 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>                */
>               preempt_disable();
>  
> +             if (need_rebalance)
> +                     while (down_trylock(&rebalance_sem))
> +                             cpu_relax();
>               /*
>                * Try to acquire and then immediately release the console
>                * semaphore.  The release will print out buffers and wake up
> @@ -2230,6 +2300,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>       unsigned long flags;
>       bool wake_klogd = false;
>       bool retry;
> +     bool need_rebalance = !!(irqs_disabled() || in_interrupt());
>  
>       if (console_suspended) {
>               up_console_sem();
> @@ -2248,6 +2319,15 @@ again:
>               int level;
>  
>               raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> +             if (need_rebalance) {
> +                     if (rebalance_try_ack())
> +                             break;
> +                     /*
> +                     * No need to check the ret value.
> +                     */
> +                     rebalance_try_cancel();
> +                     rebalance_try_request();
> +             }
>               if (seen_seq != log_next_seq) {
>                       wake_klogd = true;
>                       seen_seq = log_next_seq;
> @@ -2265,8 +2345,17 @@ again:
>                       len = 0;
>               }
>  skip:
> -             if (console_seq == log_next_seq)
> +             if (console_seq == log_next_seq) {
> +                     if (need_rebalance) {
> +                             rebalance_try_cancel();
> +                             /*
> +                             * break without rebalance, then no need to
> +                             * up rebalance_sem, set need_rebalance to NULL.
> +                             */
> +                             need_rebalance = 0;
> +                     }
>                       break;
> +             }
>  
>               msg = log_from_idx(console_idx);
>               if (msg->flags & LOG_NOCONS) {
> @@ -2318,6 +2407,14 @@ skip:
>  
>       up_console_sem();
>  
> +     if (need_rebalance) {
> +             /*
> +             * Need call up_console_sem first.
> +             */
> +             up(&rebalance_sem);
> +             goto wake_up;
> +     }
> +
>       /*
>        * Someone could have filled up the buffer again, so re-check if there's
>        * something to flush. In case we cannot trylock the console_sem again,
> @@ -2331,6 +2428,7 @@ skip:
>       if (retry && console_trylock())
>               goto again;
>  
> +wake_up:
>       if (wake_klogd)
>               wake_up_klogd();
>  }
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to