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);
}
/**
next prev parent 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