On (01/16/17 12:38), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > > Now, @console_may_schedule is not cleared when we call
> > > console_trylock() and jump back to the "again" goto label.
> > > This has become a problem, since the commit 6b97a20d3a7909daa066
> > > ("printk: set may_schedule for some of console_trylock() callers").
> >
> > so I think I'd prefer to revert that commit.
> >
> > the reason I added the commit in question was to reduce the number of
> > printk() soft lockups that I observed back then. however, it obviously
> > didn't solve all of the printk() problems.
>
> Interesting idea!
>
> > now printk() is moving in a
> > completely different direction in term of lockups and deadlocks. there
> > will be no console_trylock() call in vprintk_emit() at all. we will
> > either do console_lock() from scheduleable printk_kthread or
> > console_trylock() from IRQ work. so 6b97a20d3a7909daa066 didn't buy us
> > a lot, and it still doesn't (+ it introduced a bug).
>
> Well, console_trylock() still will be there for the sync mode.
> Or do I miss anything?
you mean in console_unlock()? there we inherit may_schedule from the
original console_sem lock path, which sould be console_lock() in async
printk case (IOW, preemptible).
other then that - from printk POV, I don't think we will care that much.
anything that directly calls console_lock()/console_trylock will be doing
console_unlock(). those paths are not addressed by async printk anyway.
I have some plans on addressing it, as you know, but that's a later work.
so let's return good ol' bhaviour:
-- console_trylock is always "no resched"
-- console_lock is always "enable resched" (regardless of
console_trylock calls from console_unlock()).
> > apart from that, Tetsuo wasn't really happy with the patch
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg103099.html
>
> The complain is questionable. If a code is sensitive for preemption,
> it should disable preemption.
>
> Another question is if people expect that printk() would call
> cond_resched() or preempt.
my assumption would be that probably people expect printk to work
asap.
[..]
> This would revert the change only for non-preemptive kernel.
>
> The commit 6b97a20d3a7909daa06625 ("printk: set may_schedule for some
> of console_trylock() callers" also enabled preemption which still
> affects preemtible kernel.
>
> Do we want to behave differently in preemptive and non-preemtive
> kernel?
not sure I'm following here. in non-preemptible kernels console_trylock()
always sets console_may_schedule to 0, just like it did before. in
preemptible kernels we now will also set console_may_schedule to 0.
just like before.
in any case, we return back the old behavior. there should be no issues (tm)
-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
