Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn about allocations which stall for too long

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>]

On (10/31/17 15:32), Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
> (new globals)
> static DEFINE_SPIN_LOCK(console_owner_lock);
> static struct task_struct console_owner;
> static bool waiter;
> 
> console_unlock() {
> 
> [ Assumes this part can not preempt ]
>
> 	spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
> 	console_owner = current;
> 	spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);

 + disables IRQs?

> 	for each message
> 		write message out to console
> 
> 		if (READ_ONCE(waiter))
> 			break;
> 
> 	spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
> 	console_owner = NULL;
> 	spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);
> 
> [ preemption possible ]

otherwise

     printk()
      if (console_trylock())
        console_unlock()
         preempt_disable()
          spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
          console_owner = current;
          spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);
          .......
          spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
IRQ
    printk()
     console_trylock() // fails so we go to busy-loop part
      spin_lock(console_owner_lock);       << deadlock


even if we would replace spin_lock(console_owner_lock) with IRQ
spin_lock, we still would need to protect against IRQs on the very
same CPU. right? IOW, we need to store smp_processor_id() of a CPU
currently doing console_unlock() and check it in vprintk_emit()?
and we need to protect the entire console_unlock() function. not
just the printing loop, otherwise the IRQ CPU will spin forever
waiting for itself to up() the console_sem.

this somehow reminds me of "static unsigned int logbuf_cpu", which
we used to have in vprintk_emit() and were happy to remove it...


the whole "console_unlock() is non-preemptible" can bite, I'm
afraid. it's not always printk()->console_unlock(), sometimes
it's console_lock()->console_unlock() that has to flush the
logbuf.

CPU0					CPU1  ~  CPU99
console_lock();
					printk(); ... printk();
console_unlock()
 preempt_disable();
  for (;;)
    call_console_drivers();
    <<lockup>>


this pattern is not so unusual. _especially_ in the existing scheme
of things.

not to mention the problem of "the last printk()", which will take
over and do the flush.

CPU0					CPU1  ~  CPU99
console_lock();
					printk(); ... printk();
console_unlock();
					    IRQ on CPU2
					     printk()
					      // take over console_sem
					      console_unlock()

and so on.
seems that there will be lots of if-s.

	-ss

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>