Re: [PATCH] printk: avoid livelock if another CPU printks continuously
From: Petr Mladek
Date: Wed Feb 10 2016 - 11:10:24 EST
On Wed 2016-02-10 09:44:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:36:49 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Bcc:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: avoid livelock if another CPU printks
> > continuously
> > Reply-To:
> > In-Reply-To: <1454963703-20433-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Hmm, playing with mail headers?
Yeah. I am trying to do this reply back in the original thread.
> > > + /* Good, other CPU entered "for(;;)" loop */
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + /* No one seems to be willing to take it... */
> > > + if (console_trylock())
> > > + goto again; /* we took it */
> > > + /* Nope, someone else holds console_sem! Good */
> >
> > The cycle gives a big chance other CPUs to enter console_unlock().
> > It means that more CPUs might end up in the above busy cycle.
> >
> > It gives a chance to move the printing to another CPU. It likely
> > slows down the flood of messages because the producer end up
> > here as well.
> >
> > So, it probably works but the performance is far from optimal.
> > Many CPUs might end up doing nothing. I am afraid that this is
> > not the right way to go.
>
> Note, it's not that performance critical, and the loop only happens if
> someone else is adding to the console, which hopefully, should be rare.
I probably used too strong words. It is possible that the performance
impact will not be critical. But the behavior is non-deterministic.
I think that the approach taken by Jack is more promising.
I mean the offloading of the console stuff to a workqueue.
Best Regards,
Petr