Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64_t

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2020-12-07 11:09:39, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-12-07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Yes, and it is read-only access. Perhaps atomic64_t is the wrong thing
> >> to use here. We could use a seqcount_latch and a shadow variable so that
> >> if a writer has been preempted, we can use the previous value. (Only
> >> kmsg_dump would need to use the lockless variant to read the value.)
> >> 
> >> void clear_seq_set(u64 val)
> >> {
> >>         spin_lock_irq(&clear_lock);
> >>         raw_write_seqcount_latch(&clear_latch);
> >>         clear_seq[0] = val;
> >>         raw_write_seqcount_latch(&clear_latch);
> >>         clear_seq[1] = val;
> >>         spin_unlock_irq(&clear_lock);
> >> }
> >> 
> >> u64 clear_seq_get_nolock(void)
> >> {
> >>         unsigned int seq, idx;
> >>         u64 val;
> >> 
> >>         do {
> >>                 seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&clear_latch);
> >>                 idx = seq & 0x1;
> >>                 val = clear_seq[idx];
> >>         } while (read_seqcount_latch_retry(&clear_latch, seq));
> >> 
> >>         return val;
> >> }
> >
> > That's overly complicated.
> >
> > If you're going to double the storage you can simply do:
> >
> >
> > 	seq = val
> > 	smp_wmb();
> > 	seq_copy = val;
> >
> > vs
> >
> > 	do {
> > 		tmp = seq_copy;
> > 		smp_rmb();
> > 		val = seq;
> > 	} while (val != tmp);
> 
> That will not work. We are talking about a situation where the writer is
> preempted. So seq will never equal seq_copy in that situation. I expect
> that the seqcount_latch is necessary.

Or we could disable interrupts around the writer.

But seqcount_latch will actually be need so that it works in panic().
The writer might be on a CPU that has been stopped using NMI. And this
code is used by dumpers() that are called during panic().

Sigh, I have to take a coffee and try to really understand the latch code ;-)

Best Regards,
Petr