Re: 4.14 backport request for dbdda842fe96f: "printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes"

[Daniel Wang]

> Let's first figure out if it works.

I would still like to try applying your patches that went into
printk.git, but for now I wonder if we can get Steven's patch into
4.14 first, for at least we know it mitigated the issue if not
fundamentally addressed it, and we've agreed it's an innocuous change
that doesn't risk breaking stable.

I haven't done this before so I'll need your help. What's the next
step to actually get Steven's patch *in* linux-4.14.y? According to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
I am supposed to send an email with the patch ID and subject, which
are both mentioned in this email. Should I send another one? What's
the process like? Thanks!

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:47 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On (11/01/18 09:05), Daniel Wang wrote:
> > > Another deadlock scenario could be the following one:
> > >
> > >         printk()
> > >          console_trylock()
> > >           down_trylock()
> > >            raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
> > >             <NMI>
> > >              panic()
> > >               console_flush_on_panic()
> > >                console_trylock()
> > >                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)        // deadlock
> > >
> > > There are no patches addressing this one at the moment. And it's
> > > unclear if you are hitting this scenario.
> >
> > I am not sure, but Steven's patches did make the deadlock I saw go away...
>
> You certainly can find cases when "busy spin on console_sem owner" logic
> can reduce some possibilities.
>
> But spin_lock(&lock); NMI; spin_lock(&lock); code is still in the kernel.
>
> > A little swamped by other things lately but I'll run a test with it.
> > If it works, would you recommend taking your patch alone
>
> Let's first figure out if it works.
>
>         -ss



--
Best,
Daniel

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:47 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On (11/01/18 09:05), Daniel Wang wrote:
> > > Another deadlock scenario could be the following one:
> > >
> > >         printk()
> > >          console_trylock()
> > >           down_trylock()
> > >            raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
> > >             <NMI>
> > >              panic()
> > >               console_flush_on_panic()
> > >                console_trylock()
> > >                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)        // deadlock
> > >
> > > There are no patches addressing this one at the moment. And it's
> > > unclear if you are hitting this scenario.
> >
> > I am not sure, but Steven's patches did make the deadlock I saw go away...
>
> You certainly can find cases when "busy spin on console_sem owner" logic
> can reduce some possibilities.
>
> But spin_lock(&lock); NMI; spin_lock(&lock); code is still in the kernel.
>
> > A little swamped by other things lately but I'll run a test with it.
> > If it works, would you recommend taking your patch alone
>
> Let's first figure out if it works.
>
>         -ss



-- 
Best,
Daniel

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature