Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

[Byungchul Park]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:43:47AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/21/16 09:06), Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:13:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > > +	if (!sync_print) {
> > > +		if (in_sched) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * @in_sched messages may come too early, when we don't
> > > +			 * yet have @printk_kthread. We can't print deferred
> > > +			 * messages directly, because this may deadlock, route
> > > +			 * them via IRQ context.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			__this_cpu_or(printk_pending,
> > > +					PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> > > +			irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> > > +		} else if (printk_kthread && !in_panic) {
> > > +			/* Offload printing to a schedulable context. */
> > > +			wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> > 
> > It will not print the "lockup suspected" message at all, for e.g. rq->lock,
> > p->pi_lock and any locks which are used within wake_up_process().
> 
> this will switch to old SYNC printk() mode should such a lockup ever
> happen, which is a giant advantage over any other implementation; doing
> wake_up_process() within the 'we can detect recursive printk() here'
> gives us better control.
> 
> why
>   printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ...
> is better?

What is IRQ? And I didn't say the recursion is good. I just said it can be
avoid without using the last resort.

> 
> 
> > Furtheremore, any printk() within wake_up_process() cannot work at all, as
> > well.
> 
> there is printk_deferred() which has LOGLEVEL_SCHED and which must be used
> in sched functions.

It would be good for all scheduler code to use the printk_deferred() as you
said, but it's not true yet.

> 
> 	-ss