Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 May 2018 10:32:04 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] printk: make printk_safe_flush safe in NMI context by skipping flushing |
| |
On Tue 2018-05-29 21:13:15, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (05/29/18 11:51), Hoeun Ryu wrote: > > Make printk_safe_flush() safe in NMI context. > > nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() can be called in NMI context. For example the > > function is called in watchdog_overflow_callback() if the flag of hardlockup > > backtrace (sysctl_hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace) is true and > > watchdog_overflow_callback() function is called in NMI context on some > > architectures. > > Calling printk_safe_flush() in nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() eventually tries > > to lock logbuf_lock in vprintk_emit() but the logbuf_lock can be already locked in > > preempted contexts (task or irq in this case) or by other CPUs and it may cause
The sentence "logbuf_lock can be already locked in preempted contexts" does not make much sense. It is a spin lock. It means that both interrupts and preemption are disabled.
I would change it to something like:
"Calling printk_safe_flush() in nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() eventually tries to lock logbuf_lock in vprintk_emit() that might be already be part of a soft- or hard-lockup on another CPU."
> > deadlocks. > > By making printk_safe_flush() safe in NMI context, the backtrace triggering CPU > > just skips flushing if the lock is not avaiable in NMI context. The messages in > > per-cpu nmi buffer of the backtrace triggering CPU can be lost if the CPU is in > > hard lockup (because irq is disabled here) but if panic() is not called. The > > flushing can be delayed by the next irq work in normal cases.
I somehow miss there a motivation why the current state is better than the previous. It looks like we exchange the risk of a deadlock with a risk of loosing the messages.
I see it the following way:
"This patch prevents a deadlock in printk_safe_flush() in NMI context. It makes sure that we continue and eventually call printk_safe_flush_on_panic() from panic() that has better chances to succeed.
There is a risk that logbuf_lock was not part of a soft- or dead-lockup and we might just loose the messages. But then there is a high chance that irq_work will get called and the messages will get flushed the normal way."
> Any chance we can add more info to the commit message? E.g. backtraces > which would describe "how" is this possible (like the one I posted in > another email). Just to make it more clear.
I agree that a backtrace would be helpful. But it is not a must to have from my point of view.
The patch itself looks good to me.
Best Regards, Petr
| |