public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox