Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] printk: Drop console_sem during panic

[Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>]

On (22/02/04 10:53), Stephen Brennan wrote:
> Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> writes:
> > On (22/02/01 10:58), Stephen Brennan wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * Return true when this CPU should unlock console_sem without pushing all
> >> + * messages to the console. This reduces the chance that the console is
> >> + * locked when the panic CPU tries to use it.
> >> + */
> >> +static bool abandon_console_lock_in_panic(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	if (!panic_in_progress())
> >> +		return false;
> >> +
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * We can use raw_smp_processor_id() here because it is impossible for
> >> +	 * the task to be migrated to the panic_cpu, or away from it. If
> >> +	 * panic_cpu has already been set, and we're not currently executing on
> >> +	 * that CPU, then we never will be.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	return atomic_read(&panic_cpu) != raw_smp_processor_id();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  /*
> >>   * Can we actually use the console at this time on this cpu?
> >>   *
> >> @@ -2746,6 +2765,10 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> >>  		if (handover)
> >>  			return;
> >>  
> >> +		/* Allow panic_cpu to take over the consoles safely */
> >> +		if (abandon_console_lock_in_panic())
> >> +			break;
> >
> > Sorry, why not just `return` like in handover case?
> 
> We need to drop console_sem before returning, since the whole benefit
> here is to increase the chance that console_sem is unlocked when the
> panic_cpu halts this CPU.

Yes, that makes sense.

> in the handover case, there's another cpu waiting, and we're essentially
> transferring the console_sem ownership to that cpu, so we explicitly
> return and skip the unlocking portion.
> 
> Does this need some comments to clarify it?

No. Everything looks good. Thanks.