lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk: robustify printk
From
Date
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:21:08 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:14:28 +0200
> > > Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > void wake_up_klogd(void)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (!oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
> > > > - wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + struct klogd_wakeup_state *kws;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > + kws = &__get_cpu_var(kws);
> > > > + if (!kws->pending) {
> > > > + kws->pending = 1;
> > > > + call_rcu(&kws->head, __wake_up_klogd);
> > > > + }
> > > > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Note that kernel/rcupreempt.c's flavour of call_rcu() takes
> > > RCU_DATA_ME().lock, so there are still code sites from which a printk
> > > can deadlock. Only now, it is config-dependent.
> > >
> > > From a quick look it appears that large amounts of kernel/rcupreempt.c
> > > are now a printk-free zone.
> >
> > Drad, missed that bit, I did look at the calling end, but forgot the
> > call_rcu() end :-/
> >
> > The initial printk_tick() based implementation didn't suffer this
> > problem, should we revert to that scheme?
>
> Dunno. Perhaps we could convert RCU_DATA_ME's spinlock_t into an
> rwlock and do read_lock() in call_rcu()? Then we can should be able to
> call printk from inside that read_lock(), but not inside write_lock(),
> which, with suitable warning comments might be acceptable.
>
> afacit everything in call_rcu()'s *rdp is cpu-local and is protected by
> local_irq_save(). rcu_ctrlblk.completed and rcu_flipped need some
> protection, but a) rdp->lock isn't sufficient anyway and b)
> read_lock protection would suffice. Maybe other CPUs can alter *rdp
> while __rcu_advance_callbacks() is running.
>
> Anyway, that's all handwaving. My point is that making rcupreempt.c
> more robust and more concurrent might be an alternative fix, and might
> be beneficial in its own right. Working out the details is what we
> have Pauls for ;)

Hehe :-)

Just in case Paul shows he's human and cannot work his way around it, I
just posted a new version of the printk_tick() stuff..



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-08 21:53    [W:0.193 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site