From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] printk: console: Allow each console to have its own loglevel
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:55:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YoZoXOghSuCy9Bi+@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YoZhXe9CZE5o73fG@kroah.com>
Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
>On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:08:04PM +0100, Chris Down wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
>> > > struct console {
>> > > char name[16];
>> > > void (*write)(struct console *, const char *, unsigned);
>> > > @@ -179,9 +173,11 @@ struct console {
>> > > void *data;
>> > > struct console *next;
>> > > int level;
>> > > - struct device classdev;
>> > > + struct device *classdev;
>> >
>> > Ick, no, keep the real structure here. It can properly handle the
>> > reference counting for the object. Just correctly clean up in the
>> > release function, not anywhere else.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm getting more and more confused about what you're asking me to do,
>> and less and less clear on the rationale.
>>
>> Can you please clarify what "correctly cleaning up" would mean for a
>> non-pointer `struct device'?
>>
>> Is your concern that...
>>
>> register_console(c)
>> device_initialize(c->d)
>> device_add(c->d)
>> unregister_console(c)
>> device_unregister(c->d) console_classdev_release(c->d)
>> register_console(c)
>> device_initialize(c->d) <-- classdev was not previously zeroed out
>> in console_classdev_release() and bad things may happen
>
>Note, you can not "recycle" a structure in the driver model. So when
>the console is unregistered, it should be freed. When it is registered,
>it should be created. Perhaps that is the confusion here?
I suspect you're close to the source of the confusion. So your point is that
the `struct console' should be freed when the driver refcount drops to 0 rather
than trying to do it the other way around. Right?
So, just to try to come to a solution, here's the lay of the land as I
understand it. Currently pretty much all consoles are statically defined (and
most of the non-static cases are false positives)
% git grep 'struct console.*=' -- '*.c' | awk '/static/ { print "static"; } !/static/ { print "non-static" }' | sort | uniq -c
15 non-static
105 static
These consoles are defined statically largely because they may come up early
enough that we don't yet have the kmalloc() infrastructure ready.
One might then think we could have these early consoles use memblock_alloc(),
but there is a problem. memblock_alloc_try_nid() inside memblock_alloc() is
__init, so while we can still use the memory later, we can't call
memblock_alloc() after __init data is freed up.
This is a problem because some consoles decide if they are early or not at
runtime, not compile time:
% git grep -E -- '->(write|read) = .*early' | wc -l
40
So depending on runtime configuration, those consoles may either be too early
to allocate with kmalloc(), or too late to allocate with memblock_alloc().
This and other reasons are why I am really trying to avoid changing the way
that the `struct console' lifecycle works -- it's already extremely complex,
and the chance of breaking something is very high, which is made even worse by
the fact that one can only test on a very small subset of available hardware.
Maybe a driver is not the best thing to use here to expose things in sysfs? Is
there something else you would recommend?
Thanks again for all your help and advice. :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-19 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-18 14:24 [RFC PATCH] printk: console: Allow each console to have its own loglevel Chris Down
2022-05-18 14:32 ` Chris Down
2022-05-18 15:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-18 19:46 ` Chris Down
2022-05-18 19:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-18 20:27 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 7:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-19 14:12 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 14:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-19 15:08 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 15:24 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-19 15:25 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-19 15:55 ` Chris Down [this message]
2022-05-19 17:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-05-19 17:55 ` Chris Down
2022-05-24 9:19 ` Petr Mladek
2022-05-30 10:48 ` [OFFLIST] " Chris Down
2022-05-30 10:49 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 7:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-05-19 14:37 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 17:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-05-19 18:05 ` Chris Down
2022-05-19 13:59 ` [printk] 6f922c8d53: BUG:kernel_NULL_pointer_dereference,address kernel test robot
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=YoZoXOghSuCy9Bi+@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
/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