Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in NMI

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2015-12-02 13:45:16, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:09 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> > printk() takes some locks and could not be used a safe way in NMI
> > context.
> > 
> > The chance of a deadlock is real especially when printing
> > stacks from all CPUs. This particular problem has been addressed
> > on x86 by the commit a9edc8809328 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack
> > trace on all CPUs").
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/nmi.c b/kernel/printk/nmi.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..3989e13a0021
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/nmi.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
> 
> ...
> 
> > +
> > +struct nmi_seq_buf {
> > +	atomic_t		len;	/* length of written data */
> > +	struct irq_work		work;	/* IRQ work that flushes the buffer */
> > +	unsigned char		buffer[PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(atomic_t) -
> > +				       sizeof(struct irq_work)];
> > +};
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct nmi_seq_buf, nmi_print_seq);
> 
> 
> PAGE_SIZE isn't always 4K.
> 
> On typical powerpc systems this will give you 128K, and on some 512K, which is
> probably not what we wanted.

Good point!

> The existing code just did:
> 
> #define NMI_BUF_SIZE           4096

I will change this to 8192. The 4kB were not enough in some cases.

Best Regards,
Petr
--
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/