Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:30:20 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] printk deadlocks if called with runqueue lock held |
| |
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Steven Rostedt wrote: > ... > > @@ -978,7 +980,13 @@ void release_console_sem(void) > > console_locked = 0; > > up(&console_sem); > > Hmm, just looking at this fragment: Doesn't up() include the risk of > running onto the runqueue lock as well?
In theory yes.
I suspect it would never ever be a problem in practice (the case we care about is running with interrupts disabled, and we got it with down_trylock()), so as this is only about essentially custon debug or oops things anyway, it's probably not worth fixing.
That said, you're definitely right in theory.
But *IF* we want to fix the almost certainly purely theoretical problem, it would be possible but fairly ugly.
We'd need to (a) make it a mutex rather than a semaphore (which is definitely not the ugly part), and then - the ugly part - (b) expose a whole new mutex interface: an enhanched version of "mutex_trylock()" that *also* keeps the mutex spinlock locked, and then instead of using "mutex_unlock()" we'd use a special "mutex_unlock_atomic()" that knows the spinlock was held over the whole time.
So it would then use something like
if (mutex_trylock_atomic(..)) {
mutex_unlock_atomic(..); }
and that would work out ok.
It's likely not that hard, and in fact this may be why "console_sem" was never converted to a mutex: I think Ingo tried, but it didn't work right with debugging enabled, and I can well imagine that it was all due to this issue. But if we do those _atomic() versions, we'd probably fix that problem.
So maybe the "ugly new interface" would actually be a cleanup in the long run, by possibly fixing the fact that things just *happened* to work with semaphores because they didn't do the fancy debug version..
Ingo?
Linus
| |