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 S1753996AbdLNRzM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:55:12 -0500
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47316 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753537AbdLNRzJ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:55:09 -0500
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4323121877
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:55:06 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Message-ID: <20171214125506.52a7e5fa@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20171214152551.GY3919388@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <20171204134825.7822-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
        <20171214142709.trgl76hbcdwaczzd@pathway.suse.cz>
        <20171214152551.GY3919388@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:25:51 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> > 3. Soft-lockups are still theoretically possible with Steven's
> >    approach.
> > 
> >    But it seems to be quite efficient in many real life scenarios,
> >    including Tetsuo's stress testing. Or am I wrong?  
> 
> AFAICS, Steven's approach doesn't fix the livelock that we see quite
> often in the fleet where we don't have a safe context to keep flushing
> messages.  This isn't theoretical at all.  You simply don't have a
> safe context on the cpu to go to.  I said I'd come back with a repro
> case but haven't had a chance to yet.  I'll try to do it before the
> end of the year, but idk this is pretty obvious.

Yes! Please create a reproducer, because I still don't believe there is
one. And it's all hand waving until there's an actual report that we can
lock up the system with my approach.

-- Steve