Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: Move printk out of db lock critical sections

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (12/12/18 17:28), Waiman Long wrote:
> The db->lock is a raw spinlock and so the lock hold time is supposed
> to be short. This will not be the case when printk() is being involved
> in some of the critical sections. In order to avoid the long hold time,
> in case some messages need to be printed, the debug_object_is_on_stack()
> and debug_print_object() calls are now moved out of those critical
> sections.
> 
> Holding the db->lock while calling printk() may lead to deadlock if
> printk() somehow requires the allocation/freeing of debug object that
> happens to be in the same hash bucket or a circular lock dependency
> warning from lockdep as reported in https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/11/143.
> 
> [   87.209665] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [   87.210547] 4.20.0-rc4-00057-gc96cf92 #1 Tainted: G        W
> [   87.211449] ------------------------------------------------------
> [   87.212405] getty/519 is trying to acquire lock:
> [   87.213074] (____ptrval____) (&obj_hash[i].lock){-.-.}, at: debug_check_no_obj_freed+0xb4/0x302
> [   87.214343]
> [   87.214343] but task is already holding lock:
> [   87.215174] (____ptrval____) (&port_lock_key){-.-.}, at: uart_shutdown+0x3a3/0x4e2
> [   87.216260]
> [   87.216260] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> This patch was also found to be able to fix a boot hanging problem
> when the initramfs image was switched on after a debugobjects splat
> from the EFI code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>

The patch looks good to me. A bit curious if we need to also patch
the self-test part debugobjects - check_results(). That guy still
printk()-s under bucket ->lock.

	-ss