lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: mark PRINTK_DEFERRED_CONTEXT_MASK in __schedule()
From
Date

在 2020/9/28 下午3:32, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:11:30AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> The WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE with rq lock held in __schedule() should be
>> deferred by marking the PRINTK_DEFERRED_CONTEXT_MASK, or will cause
>> deadlock on rq lock in the printk path.
> It also shouldn't happen in the first place, so who bloody cares.

Yes, but if our box deadlock just because a WARN_ON_ONCE, we have to
reboot : (

So these WARN_ON_ONCE have BUG_ON effect ?  Or we should change to use
BUG_ON ?

Thanks.

>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 2d95dc3f4644..81d8bf614225 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -4444,6 +4444,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>> */
>> rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>> smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>> + printk_deferred_enter();
>>
>> /* Promote REQ to ACT */
>> rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;
>> @@ -4530,6 +4531,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>> rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>> }
>>
>> + printk_deferred_exit();
>> balance_callback(rq);
>> }
> NAK printk_deferred is an abomination, kill that.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-28 10:55    [W:0.072 / U:9.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site