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 S1755352AbdKBIxk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:53:40 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:54748 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752614AbdKBIxS (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:53:18 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Qli0UbwjEu/kIsOyThrTFqEkBN9Vkte3+0bgi0Ptwx+5/46iDOl8bsGRjFt3SrzRhIbZ93Wg==
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:53:13 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "yuwang.yuwang" <yuwang.yuwang@alibaba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn about allocations which stall for too long
Message-ID: <20171102085313.GD655@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <1509017339-4802-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20171031153225.218234b4@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171031153225.218234b4@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (10/31/17 15:32), Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
> (new globals)
> static DEFINE_SPIN_LOCK(console_owner_lock);
> static struct task_struct console_owner;
> static bool waiter;
> 
> console_unlock() {
> 
> [ Assumes this part can not preempt ]
>
> 	spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
> 	console_owner = current;
> 	spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);

 + disables IRQs?

> 	for each message
> 		write message out to console
> 
> 		if (READ_ONCE(waiter))
> 			break;
> 
> 	spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
> 	console_owner = NULL;
> 	spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);
> 
> [ preemption possible ]

otherwise

     printk()
      if (console_trylock())
        console_unlock()
         preempt_disable()
          spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
          console_owner = current;
          spin_unlock(console_owner_lock);
          .......
          spin_lock(console_owner_lock);
IRQ
    printk()
     console_trylock() // fails so we go to busy-loop part
      spin_lock(console_owner_lock);       << deadlock


even if we would replace spin_lock(console_owner_lock) with IRQ
spin_lock, we still would need to protect against IRQs on the very
same CPU. right? IOW, we need to store smp_processor_id() of a CPU
currently doing console_unlock() and check it in vprintk_emit()?
and we need to protect the entire console_unlock() function. not
just the printing loop, otherwise the IRQ CPU will spin forever
waiting for itself to up() the console_sem.

this somehow reminds me of "static unsigned int logbuf_cpu", which
we used to have in vprintk_emit() and were happy to remove it...


the whole "console_unlock() is non-preemptible" can bite, I'm
afraid. it's not always printk()->console_unlock(), sometimes
it's console_lock()->console_unlock() that has to flush the
logbuf.

CPU0					CPU1  ~  CPU99
console_lock();
					printk(); ... printk();
console_unlock()
 preempt_disable();
  for (;;)
    call_console_drivers();
    <<lockup>>


this pattern is not so unusual. _especially_ in the existing scheme
of things.

not to mention the problem of "the last printk()", which will take
over and do the flush.

CPU0					CPU1  ~  CPU99
console_lock();
					printk(); ... printk();
console_unlock();
					    IRQ on CPU2
					     printk()
					      // take over console_sem
					      console_unlock()

and so on.
seems that there will be lots of if-s.

	-ss