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 S1755701AbcI3CnY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:43:24 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:33218 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751171AbcI3CnR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:43:17 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:43:07 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] printk: use alt_printk to handle printk()
 recursive calls
Message-ID: <20160930024307.GE547@swordfish>
References: <20160927142237.5539-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160929132502.GG26796@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160929132502.GG26796@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (09/29/16 15:25), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2016-09-27 23:22:30, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > 	Hello,
> > 
> > 	RFC
> > 
> > 	This patch set extends a lock-less NMI per-cpu buffers idea to
> > handle recursive printk() calls. The basic mechanism is pretty much the
> > same -- at the beginning of a deadlock-prone section we switch to lock-less
> > printk callback, and return back to a default printk implementation at the
> > end; the messages are getting flushed to a logbuf buffer from a safer
> > context.
> 
> I was skeptical but I really like this way now.
>
> The switching of the buffers is a bit hairy in this version but I
> think that we could make it much better.
> 
> Other than that it looks like a big win. It kills a lot of
> printk-related pain points. And it will not be that complicated
> after all.

many thanks for looking at this train wreck.

so, like I said, it addresses printk()-recursion in *ideally* quite
a minimalistic way -- just several alt_printk_enter/exit calls in
printk.c, without ever touching any other parts of the kernel.

gunning down printk deadlocks in general, however, requires much more
effort; or even a completely different approach.

a) a lock-less printk() by default
   um, `#define printk alt_printk'. but this will break printk() from irq.
   and the ordering of messages from per-cpu buffers may be far from correct.

b) combining a DEFERRED_WARN + alt_printk
   DEFERRED_WARN potentially is a never ending thing. we can add some
   lockdep annotations, perhaps, and hope that error handling branches
   that may contain WARN_ONs/printk-s will be executed with prove_locking
   enabled on someone's machine.

c) ...

	-ss