Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

[Byungchul Park]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 09:34:50AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > I am curious about how you make the wake_up_process() call and I may want
> > to talk about it at the next spin. Anyway, then we will lose the last
> > message when "if (logbuf_cpu == this_cpu)" acts. Is it acceptible?
> 
> yes, this is how it is. "BUG: recent printk recursion!" will be printed
> instead of the message.

I am not sure if it's the best way. For example, in the case suspecting
rq->lock, we cannot inform about the rq's "lockup suspected" while a
printk() is printing something, whatever it is, asynchronously. We can
avoid the infinite recursion with the patch I attached below, even though
the wake_up() and friends are used out of the section protected by
logbuf_lock.

> > IMHO it's not a good choice to use wake_up() and friend within a printk()
> > since it can additionally cause another recursion. Of course, it does not
> > happen if the condition (logbuf_cpu == this_cpu) acts. But I don't think
> > it's good to rely on the condition with losing a message. Anyway I really
> > really want to see your next spin and talk.
> 
> the alternative is NOT significantly better. pending bit is checked in
> IRQ, so one simply can do
> 
> 	local_irq_save();
> 	while (xxx) printk();
> 	local_irq_restore();
> 
> and _in the worst case_ nothing will be printed to console until IRQ are

Yes, you are right. But I am not sure yet.

> I'd probably prefer to add wake_up_process() to vprintk_emit() and do it
> under the logbuf lock. first, we don't suffer from disabled IRQs on current
> CPU, second we have somewhat better chances to break printk() recursion
> *in some cases*.

I think the logbuf_cpu is not for it. It's a kind of last resort. It would
be better to avoid using it if we can. And we can.

> > This cannot happen. console_lock() cannot continue because the prior
> > console_unlock() does not release console_sem.lock yet when
> > wake_up_process() is called. Only a deadlock exists. And my patch solves
> > the problem so that the deadlock cannot happen.
> 
> ah, we lost in patches. I was talking about yet another patch
> (you probably not aware of. you were not Cc'd. Sorry!) that
> makes console_unlock() asynchronous:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145750373530161

I checked it now. Do you mean the wake_up_process() introduced in the new
patch in console_unlock()? If so, I also think it does not make a deadlock,
just can make a recursion in the worst case. I thought it was the
wake_up_process() in up() which is eventually called from console_unlock().
A deadlock can happen with the wake_up_proces() in up(). :-)

Thanks,
Byungchul

-----8<-----