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 S1754933AbcI2L3J (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:29:09 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55765 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753177AbcI2L3A (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:29:00 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:28:53 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] printk: Implement WARN_*DEFERRED()
Message-ID: <20160929112853.GC26796@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <1474992135-14777-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20160928011845.GA753@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160928011845.GA753@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 2016-09-28 10:18:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/27/16 18:02), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The main trick is that we replace the per-CPU function pointer
> > by a preempt_count-like variable that could track the printk context.
> > 
> > I know that Sergey has another ideas in this area. But I wanted to see
> > how this approach would look like.
> 
> well, yes. I was looking at WARN_*_DEFERRED [1] for some time, and, I
> think, the maintenance cost of that solution is just too high:
> 
> a) every existing WARN_* in sched/timekeeping/who knows where else
>    must be evaluated to ensure that in can't be called from printk()
>    path. if `false' - then the corresponding macro must be replaced
>    with _DEFERRED flavor.
> 
> b) any patch that adds new WARN_* usages must be additionally checked
>    to ensure that each of new WARN_* macros cannot be called from printk
>    path. if `false' -- the corresponding macro must be replaced with
>    _DEFERRED flavor.
> 
> c) any patch that refactors the code or moves some function calls around
>    etc. must be additionally checked for any accidental WARN_* from printk
>    path. even though if none of the patches added any new WARN_* to the code.
> 
> b) apart from WARN_* there can be `accidental' pr_err/pr_debug/etc. not
>    necessarily newly added (see 'c').
> 
> 
> that's too much.
> 
> it takes a lot of additional effort, because both reviewer and contributor
> must consider printk() internals. and, what's worse, if something goes
> unnoticed we end up having a printk() deadlock again.
> 
> so I decided to address some of printk() issues in printk.c, not in
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c or kernel/sched/core.c or anywhere else.

I see the point.

Your approach (alt buffer) adds some complexity to the printk code but
it allows to remove printk_deferred()/WARN_DEFERRED() and all the risk
of it. I am going to look closely on it.

Best Regards,
Petr