From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:40:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YL9XMBxeZ4fGRS79@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210607200232.22211-2-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
On Mon 2021-06-07 22:02:31, John Ogness wrote:
> dump_stack() implements its own cpu-reentrant spinning lock to
> best-effort serialize stack traces in the printk log. However,
> there are other functions (such as show_regs()) that can also
> benefit from this serialization.
>
> Move the cpu-reentrant spinning lock (cpu lock) into new helper
> functions printk_cpu_lock_irqsave()/printk_cpu_unlock_irqrestore()
> so that it is available for others as well. For !CONFIG_SMP the
> cpu lock is a NOP.
>
> Note that having multiple cpu locks in the system can easily
> lead to deadlock. Code needing a cpu lock should use the
> printk cpu lock, since the printk cpu lock could be acquired
> from any code and any context.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
There are some nits below but the patch looks fine to me as it.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -3532,3 +3532,78 @@ void kmsg_dump_rewind(struct kmsg_dump_iter *iter)
> +void printk_cpu_lock_irqsave(bool *lock_flag, unsigned long *irq_flags)
> +{
> + int old;
> + int cpu;
> +
> +retry:
> + local_irq_save(*irq_flags);
> +
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + old = atomic_cmpxchg(&printk_cpulock_owner, -1, cpu);
> + if (old == -1) {
> + /* This CPU is now the owner. */
> +
Superfluous space?
> + *lock_flag = true;
The original name name "was_locked" was more descriptive. I agree that
it was not good for an API. What about keeping the inverted logic and
calling it "lock_nested" ?
I do not resist on any change. The logic is trivial so...
> +
> + } else if (old == cpu) {
> + /* This CPU is already the owner. */
> +
> + *lock_flag = false;
> +
Even more superfluous spaces?
> + } else {
> + local_irq_restore(*irq_flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * Wait for the lock to release before jumping to cmpxchg()
> + * in order to mitigate the thundering herd problem.
> + */
> + do {
> + cpu_relax();
> + } while (atomic_read(&printk_cpulock_owner) != -1);
> +
> + goto retry;
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk_cpu_lock_irqsave);
> +
> +/*
> + * printk_cpu_unlock_irqrestore: Release the printk cpu-reentrant spinning
> + * lock and restore interrupts.
> + * @lock_flag: The current lock state.
> + * @irq_flags: The current irq state.
"The current" is a bit misleading. Both values actually describe
the state before the related printk_cpu_lock_irqsave().
What about something like?
* @lock_nested: Lock state set when the lock was taken.
* @irq_flags: IRQ flags stored when the lock was taken.
> + *
> + * Release the lock. The calling processor must be the owner of the lock.
> + *
> + * It is safe to call this function from any context and state.
> + */
> +void printk_cpu_unlock_irqrestore(bool lock_flag, unsigned long irq_flags)
> +{
> + if (lock_flag) {
> + atomic_set(&printk_cpulock_owner, -1);
> +
> + local_irq_restore(irq_flags);
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk_cpu_unlock_irqrestore);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
Best Regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-08 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 20:02 [PATCH next v2 0/2] introduce printk cpu lock John Ogness
2021-06-07 20:02 ` [PATCH next v2 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c John Ogness
2021-06-08 2:43 ` kernel test robot
2021-06-08 13:48 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-10 13:26 ` John Ogness
2021-06-11 7:00 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-08 11:40 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2021-06-08 13:55 ` John Ogness
2021-06-08 14:54 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-07 20:02 ` [PATCH next v2 2/2] printk: fix cpu lock ordering John Ogness
2021-06-08 12:55 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-08 14:18 ` John Ogness
2021-06-08 14:49 ` Petr Mladek
2021-06-10 14:44 ` John Ogness
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YL9XMBxeZ4fGRS79@alley \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=0x7f454c46@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox