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 S1754583AbcCWKE1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 23 Mar 2016 06:04:27 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58332 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751611AbcCWKEW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Mar 2016 06:04:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:04:20 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v6 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Message-ID: <20160323100420.GD5522@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <1458581130-8677-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1458581130-8677-2-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160322131106.GA5522@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20160323003725.GA641@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160323003725.GA641@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 2016-03-23 09:37:25, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Petr,
> 
> On (03/22/16 14:11), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > +	 * Set printing_func() sleep condition early, under the @logbuf_lock.
> > > +	 * So printing kthread (if RUNNING) will go to console_lock() and spin
> > > +	 * on @logbuf_lock.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (!printk_sync)
> > > +		need_flush_console = true;
> > 
> > We set this variable for each call and also when printk_kthread is
> > NULL or when sync_printk is false.
> 
> hm, yes. (printk_kthread && !need_flush_console) makes more sense.
> so we it doesn't get re-dirty if already set.

This does not solve the problem mentioned below. There still might be
extra cycle if the kthread is inside console_unclock().

> > We migth want to clear it also from console_unlock(). I think that
> > a good place would be in the check:
> > 
> > 	raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> > 	retry = console_seq != log_next_seq;
> > 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> 
> hm, what's wrong with clearing it in printk_kthread  printing function?

I though about the following scenario:

CPU0					CPU1

vprintk_emit()
  need_flush_console = true;

  wake_up_process(printk_thread)

					printing_func()

					  need_flush_console = false;

					  console_lock()
					  console_unlock()

vprintk_emit()

  need_flush_console = true;

					    # flush 1st message
					    # flush 2nd message

					    if (!need_flush_console)
					      # fails and continues

					    console_lock()
					    console_unlock()

					    # nope because 2nd
					    # message already flushed

					  if (!need_flush_console)
					     schedule()

					     # did one unnecessary
					     # cycle to get asleep


Best Regards,
Petr

PS: If you touch the code, please rename printing_func() to
printk_kthread_func() to make it more clear what it does.
I am sorry for nitpicking.