lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes
Hello,

thanks a lot for help. I am sorry for the late response. I wanted to
handle this mail with a clean head.

On Tue 2017-11-28 10:42:29, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:58:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > @@ -1797,13 +1797,6 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> > spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> > printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * The owner passed the console lock to us.
> > - * Since we did not spin on console lock, annotate
> > - * this as a trylock. Otherwise lockdep will
> > - * complain.
> > - */
> > - mutex_acquire(&console_lock_dep_map, 0, 1, _THIS_IP_);
>
> Hello Petr,
>
> IMHO, it would get unbalanced if you only remove this mutex_acquire().
>
> > console_unlock();
> > printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> > }
> > @@ -2334,10 +2327,10 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> > /* The waiter is now free to continue */
> > spin_release(&console_owner_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> > /*
> > - * Hand off console_lock to waiter. The waiter will perform
> > - * the up(). After this, the waiter is the console_lock owner.
> > + * Hand off console_lock to waiter. After this, the waiter
> > + * is the console_lock owner.
> > */
> > - mutex_release(&console_lock_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
>
> IMHO, this release() should be moved to somewhere properly.
>
> > + lock_commit_crosslock((struct lockdep_map *)&console_lock_dep_map);
> > printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> > /* Note, if waiter is set, logbuf_lock is not held */
> > return;
>
> However, now that cross-release was introduces, lockdep can be applied
> to semaphore operations. Actually, I have a plan to do that. I think it
> would be better to make semaphore tracked with lockdep and remove all
> these manual acquire() and release() here. What do you think about it?

IMHO, it would be great to add lockdep annotations into semaphore
operations.

Well, I am not sure if this would be enough in this case. I think
that the locking dependency in this Steven's patch is special.
The semaphore is passed from one owner to another one without
unlocking. Both sides wait for each other using a busy loop.

The busy loop/waiting is activated only when the current owner
is not sleeping to avoid softlockup. I think that it is
a kind of conditional cross-release or something even
more special.

Sigh, I wish I was able to clean my head even more to be
able to think about this.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-08 15:01    [W:0.177 / U:1.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site