lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH printk-rework 09/12] um: synchronize kmsg_dumper
John,

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>> The line was previously synchronized for the kmsg_dump_get_line()
>>> call. But yes, it was not synchronized after the call, which is a bug if
>>> the dump is triggered on multiple CPUs simultaneously. The commit
>>> message should also mention that it is handling that bug.
>>>
>>>> IMHO, this patch is not needed.
>>>
>>> I am not familiar enough with ARCH=um to know if dumps can be triggered
>>> on multiple CPUs simultaneously. Perhaps ThomasM or Richard can chime in
>>> here.
>>
>> Well, uml has no SMP support, so no parallel dumps. :-)
>
> When I grep through arch/um, I see many uses of spinlocks. This would
> imply that uml at least has some sort of preemption model where they are
> needed. Dumps can trigger from any context and from multiple paths.
>
> If you are sure that this is no concern, then I will drop this patch
> from my series.

Currently uml selects ARCH_NO_PREEMPT, so no preemtion too.
We have spinlocks at obvious places in arch/um/ just to be ready if uml supports
SMP at some point.
Does your patch have drawbacks right now for uml? If not, I'd suggest to keep it.

Thanks,
//richard

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-01 21:41    [W:0.215 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site