On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 10:26:28AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2019-05-06 10:16:14, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Mon 2019-05-06 09:45:53, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > console_trylock, called from within printk, can be called from pretty > > > much anywhere. Including try_to_wake_up. Note that this isn't common, > > > usually the box is in pretty bad shape at that point already. But it > > > really doesn't help when then lockdep jumps in and spams the logs, > > > potentially obscuring the real backtrace we're really interested in. > > > One case I've seen (slightly simplified backtrace): > > > > > > Call Trace: > > > <IRQ> > > > console_trylock+0xe/0x60 > > > vprintk_emit+0xf1/0x320 > > > printk+0x4d/0x69 > > > __warn_printk+0x46/0x90 > > > native_smp_send_reschedule+0x2f/0x40 > > > check_preempt_curr+0x81/0xa0 > > > ttwu_do_wakeup+0x14/0x220 > > > try_to_wake_up+0x218/0x5f0 > > > > try_to_wake_up() takes p->pi_lock. It could deadlock because it > > can get called recursively from printk_safe_up(). > > > > And there are more locks taken from try_to_wake_up(), for example, > > __task_rq_lock() taken from ttwu_remote(). > > > > IMHO, the most reliable solution would be do call the entire > > up_console_sem() from printk deferred context. We could assign > > few bytes for this context in the per-CPU printk_deferred > > variable. > > Ah, I was too fast and did the same mistake. This won't help because > it would still call try_to_wake_up() recursively. Uh :-/ > We need to call all printk's that can be called under locks > taken in try_to_wake_up() path in printk deferred context. > Unfortunately it is whack a mole approach. Hm since it's whack-a-mole anyway, what about converting the WARN_ON into a prinkt_deferred, like all the other scheduler related code? Feels a notch more consistent to me than leaking the printk_context into areas it wasn't really meant built for. Scheduler code already fully subscribed to the whack-a-mole approach after all. This would mean we drop the backtrace from the native_smp_send_reschedule, or maybe we need a printk_deferred_backtrace()? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
