All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, marcin.slusarz@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Paul E McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:10:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1218215454.8625.133.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808080931550.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 09:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Something along the lines of the below patch?
> 
> Could we not literally just make this a RCU event? Unconditionally too?

Sure, but the RCU callback period is at least 3 jiffies and much longer
when busy - I'm not sure how long before we force a grace period, we do
that to avoid DoS, right Paul?

So this version would have a much higher risk of overflowing the console
buffer and making klogd miss bits. Then again, I really don't care about
klogd at _all_, I've been running with the wakeup patched out for ages.


Gah, the below doesn't boot - because I guess we start using rcu before
its properly set up.. should I poke at it more?

---
diff --git a/kernel/printk.c b/kernel/printk.c
index b51b156..3d80e30 100644
--- a/kernel/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk.c
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
 #include <linux/security.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/syscalls.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
 
 #include <asm/uaccess.h>
 
@@ -982,10 +983,38 @@ int is_console_locked(void)
 	return console_locked;
 }
 
-void wake_up_klogd(void)
+void __wake_up_klogd(struct rcu_head *head);
+
+static struct {
+	struct rcu_head head;
+	spinlock_t	lock;
+	int		pending;
+} klogd_wakeup_state = {
+	.lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(klogd_wakeup_state.lock),
+};
+
+void __wake_up_klogd(struct rcu_head *head)
 {
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&klogd_wakeup_state.lock, flags);
+	BUG_ON(!klogd_wakeup_state.pending);
 	if (!oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
 		wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
+	klogd_wakeup_state.pending = 0;
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&klogd_wakeup_state.lock, flags);
+}
+
+void wake_up_klogd(void)
+{
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&klogd_wakeup_state.lock, flags);
+	if (!klogd_wakeup_state.pending) {
+		call_rcu(&klogd_wakeup_state.head, __wake_up_klogd);
+		klogd_wakeup_state.pending = 1;
+	}
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&klogd_wakeup_state.lock, flags);
 }
 
 /**



  reply	other threads:[~2008-08-08 17:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-24 12:24 [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-24 12:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] printk_nowakeup() Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-24 12:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] time: xtime lock vs printk Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-24 14:21   ` Daniel Walker
2008-03-24 14:31 ` [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock Marcin Slusarz
2008-03-24 17:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-03-24 18:15   ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-24 18:57     ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08 13:30       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 13:46         ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 16:41         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-08 17:10           ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2008-08-08 17:25             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-08 17:40               ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 17:48                 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-08 18:14                   ` [PATCH] printk: robustify printk Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 18:30                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-08 18:33                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 19:14                     ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08 19:21                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 19:37                         ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08 19:49                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 20:32                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-08 20:37                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-08 20:46                               ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08 20:57                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-08 21:13                                   ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-08 20:50                               ` Steven Rostedt
2008-08-08 19:47                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-11 10:45                           ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-11 11:03                             ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-11 11:22                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-11 11:42                                 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-11 14:15                                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-08-11 14:29                                     ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-11 14:55                                       ` Steven Rostedt
2008-08-11 12:02                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-11 12:14                                   ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-11 11:04                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-11 11:51                               ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-11 12:36                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-20 12:40                                 ` Jiri Kosina
2008-08-20 12:43                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-20 13:40                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-11 16:09                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-11 13:22                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-08 20:30                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-08 20:20                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-08 21:35                     ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-08 23:02                     ` David Miller
2008-08-09  0:18                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-08 17:52                 ` [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock Steven Rostedt
2008-03-24 18:16   ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1218215454.8625.133.camel@twins \
    --to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcin.slusarz@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.