On Mon 2021-03-22 22:58:47, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-22, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon 2021-03-22 12:16:15, John Ogness wrote:
> >> On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >> >> * Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
> >> >> * drivers that might have their own locks.
> >> >> */
> >> >> - if ((this_cpu_read(printk_context) & PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
> >> >> + if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) &
> >> >> + (PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK |
> >> >> + PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK |
> >> >> + PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
> >> >
> >> But I suppose I could switch
> >> the 1 printk_nmi_direct_enter() user to printk_nmi_enter() so that
> >> PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK can be removed now. I would do this in a
> >> 4th patch of the series.
> >
> > Yes, please unify the PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT. One is enough.
>
> Agreed. (But I'll go even further. See below.)
>
> > I wonder if it would make sense to go even further at this stage.
> > What is possible?
> >
> > 1. We could get rid of printk_nmi_enter()/exit() and
> > PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT completely already now. It is enough
> > to check in_nmi() in printk_func().
> >
>
> Agreed. in_nmi() within vprintk_emit() is enough to detect if the
> console code should be skipped:
>
> if (!in_sched && !in_nmi()) {
> ...
> }
Well, we also need to make sure that the irq work is scheduled to
call console later. We should keep this dicision in
printk_func(). I mean to replace the current
if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) &
(PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK |
PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK |
PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
with
/*
* Avoid calling console drivers in recursive printk()
* and in NMI context.
*/
if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) || in_nmi() {
That said, I am not sure how this fits your further rework.
I do not want to complicate it too much.
I am just afraid that the discussion about console rework might
take some time. And this would remove some complexity before we
started the more complicated or controversial changes.
> > 2. I thought about unifying printk_safe_enter()/exit() and
> > printk_enter()/exit(). They both count recursion with
> > IRQs disabled, have similar name. But they are used
> > different way.
> >
> > But better might be to rename printk_safe_enter()/exit() to
> > console_enter()/exit() or to printk_deferred_enter()/exit().
> > It would make more clear what it does now. And it might help
> > to better distinguish it from the new printk_enter()/exit().
> >
> > I am not sure if it is worth it.
>
> I am also not sure if it is worth the extra "noise" just to give the
> function a more appropriate name. The plan is to remove it completely
> soon anyway. My vote is to leave the name as it is.
OK, let's keep printk_safe() name. It was just an idea. I wrote it
primary to sort my thoughts.
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
