Re: [PATCH 01/20 -v5] printk - dont wakeup klogd with interruptsdisabled

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:02 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > +	if (!irqs_disabled() && wake_klogd)
> >  		wake_up_klogd();
>
> This causes a regression .. When printk is called during an OOPS in
> kernels without this change then the OOPS will get logged, since the
> logging process (klogd) is woken to handle the messages.. If you apply
> this change klogd doesn't wakeup, and hence doesn't log the oops.. So if
> you remove the wakeup here you have to add it someplace else to maintain
> the logging ..
>
> (I'm not theorizing here, I have defects logged against this specific
> piece of code..)

It wont get woken up anyway. Did you look at wake_up_klogd?

void wake_up_klogd(void)
{
	if (!oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
		wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
}


So if oops_in_progress is set, then it still wont get woken. Perhaps it
got woken some other way? Or is oops_in_progress not set in these oops?

One other solution is to make the runqueue locks visible externally. Like:

in sched.c:

int runqueue_is_locked(void)
{
	int cpu = get_cpu();
	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
	int ret;

	ret = spin_is_locked(&rq->lock);
	put_cpu();
	return ret;
}

And in printk we could do:

	if (wake_klogd && !runqueue_is_locked())
		wake_up_klogd();

This probably is the cleanest solution since it simply prevents the
deadlock from occurring.

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/