lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Regression in v4.19.106 breaking waking up of readers of /proc/kmsg and /dev/kmsg
On (20/02/29 18:47), Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
> > > What do folks think?
> >
> > Well, my 5 cents, there is nothing that prevents "too-early"
> > printk_deferred() calls in the future. From that POV I'd probably
> > prefer to "forbid" printk_deffered() to touch per-CPU deferred
> > machinery until it's not "too early" anymore. Similar to what we
> > do in printk_safe::queue_flush_work().
>
> I agree that printk_deferred() should handle being called too early.
> But the issue is with per_cpu variables correct? Not the irq_work?

Correct. printk_deferred() and printk_safe()/printk_nmi() irq_works
are per-CPU. We use "a special" flag in printk_safe()/printk_nmi() to
tell if it's too early to modify per-CPU irq_work or not.

I believe that we need to use that flag for all printk-safe/nmi
per-CPU data, including buffers, not only for irq_work. Just in
case if printk_safe or printk_nmi, somehow, are being called too
early.

> We could add a flag in init/main.c after setup_per_cpu_areas() and then
> just have printk_deferred() act like a normal printk(). At that point,
> there shouldn't be an issue in calling printk() directly, is there?

Sure, this will work. I believe we introduced a "work around" approach
in printk-safe because noone would ACK a global init/main.c flag for
printk(). If we can land a "per_cpu_areas_ready" flag (I've some doubts
here), then yes (!), let's use it and let's remove printk-safe workaround.

-ss

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-01 06:23    [W:0.060 / U:27.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site