From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
pmladek@suse.cz, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove separate printk_sched buffers and use printk buf instead
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:20:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140507142047.GC12433@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140506200519.69cd9112@gandalf.local.home>
On Tue 06-05-14 20:05:19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 16:37:14 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> > What I have in -next is very different from this version of the patch.
> > What's happening?
>
> Hmm, it looks massaged from what I originally sent in order to be
> placed after the other patches in the series. A quick review of the
> patch seems to be mostly the same logic, but it is a bit different.
>
> Jan, did you update my patch?
Yes, I was carrying it for quite long and with each rebase and rewrite of
the patch set it got massaged a bit. So in the end it's probably somewhat
different from what you originally submitted.
> > From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Subject: printk: remove separate printk_sched buffers and use printk buf instead
> >
> > To prevent deadlocks with doing a printk inside the scheduler,
> > printk_sched() was created. The issue is that printk has a console_sem
> > that it can grab and release. The release does a wake up if there's a
> > task pending on the sem, and this wake up grabs the rq locks that is held
> > in the scheduler. This leads to a possible deadlock if the wake up uses
> > the same rq as the one with the rq lock held already.
> >
> > What printk_sched() does is to save the printk write in a per cpu buffer
> > and sets the PRINTK_PENDING_SCHED flag. On a timer tick, if this flag is
> > set, the printk() is done against the buffer.
> >
> > There's a couple of issues with this approach.
> >
> > 1) If two printk_sched()s are called before the tick, the second one
> > will overwrite the first one.
> >
> > 2) The temporary buffer is 512 bytes and is per cpu. This is a quite a
> > bit of space wasted for something that is seldom used.
> >
> > In order to remove this, the printk_sched() can use the printk buffer
> > instead, and delay the console_trylock()/console_unlock() to the queued
> > work.
> >
> > Because printk_sched() would then be taking the logbuf_lock, the
> > logbuf_lock must not be held while doing anything that may call into the
> > scheduler functions, which includes wake ups. Unfortunately, printk()
> > also has a console_sem that it uses, and on release, the up(&console_sem)
> > may do a wake up of any pending waiters. This must be avoided while
> > holding the logbuf_lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>
> Jan, if you did massage my patch, you should add here what you did.
> Usually in [brackets]. Otherwise it puts the blame on me if something
> breaks, or adds confusion if I happen to send out another patch like I
> just did.
Yeah, sorry for that. I should have been updating the changelog with what
I did...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-07 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-05 23:18 [PATCH] printk: Remove separate printk_sched buffers and use printk buf instead Steven Rostedt
2014-05-05 23:33 ` Joe Perches
2014-05-05 23:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-06 9:45 ` Jan Kara
2014-05-06 11:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-06 23:37 ` Andrew Morton
2014-05-06 23:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-07 0:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-07 14:20 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2014-05-07 9:13 ` Petr Mládek
2014-05-07 14:33 ` Jan Kara
2014-05-07 15:57 ` Petr Mládek
2014-05-07 16:29 ` Petr Mládek
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=20140507142047.GC12433@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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