From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751959AbcBKPET (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:04:19 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176]:32923 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751120AbcBKPER (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:04:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:02:17 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 4/4] printk: set may_schedule for some of
 console_trylock callers
Message-ID: <20160211150217.GA527@swordfish>
References: <1453536913-9545-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1453536913-9545-5-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160211144105.GM3305@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160211144105.GM3305@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello Petr,

On (02/11/16 15:41), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > +	console_may_schedule = !oops_in_progress &&
> > +			preemptible() &&
> > +			!rcu_preempt_depth();
> >  	return 1;
> 
> We discussed this a lot but I am still a bit nervous ;-)

sure, no prob :-)

> Avoid scheduling when oops_in_progress makes sense.
> 
> preemptible() takes care of preemption and IRQ contexts.
> The comment above explains that it is safe to use here.
> 
> The check for rcu_preempt_depth() makes sense. But is it
> safe, please?
> 
> rcu_preempt_depth() returns 0 if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not
> enabled. It means that you are not able to detect RCU read
> section and it might cause problems.

well, I believe it's ok. __rcu_read_lock() for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
does current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++, so rcu_preempt_depth() works
as expected. otherwise, for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU kernel,
__rcu_read_lock() does

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
		preempt_disable()


- if we run "CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU" then rcu_preempt_depth()
  works here.

- if we run "!CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU && CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT"
  then preemptible() works for us

- if we run "!CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU && !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT"
  then preemptible() is always 0.

> I rather add Paul into CC.

thanks.

	-ss