(Ccing Tejun)
On (11/07/17 10:40), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/06/17 21:06), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I tried your patch with warn_alloc() torture. It did not cause lockups.
> > But I felt that possibility of failing to flush last second messages (such
> > as SysRq-c or SysRq-b) to consoles has increased. Is this psychological?
>
> do I understand it correctly that there are "lost messages"?
>
> sysrq-b does an immediate emergency reboot. "normally" it's not expected
> to flush any pending logbuf messages because it's an emergency-reboot...
> but in fact it does. and this is why sysrq-b is not 100% reliable:
>
> __handle_sysrq()
> {
> pr_info("SysRq : ");
>
> op_p = __sysrq_get_key_op(key);
> pr_cont("%s\n", op_p->action_msg);
>
> op_p->handler(key);
>
> pr_cont("\n");
> }
>
> those pr_info()/pr_cont() calls can spoil sysrq-b, depending on how
> badly the system is screwed. if pr_info() deadlocks, then we never
> go to op_p->handler(key)->emergency_restart(). even if you suppress
> printing of info loglevel messages, pr_info() still goes to
> console_unlock() and prints [console_seq, log_next_seq] messages,
> if there any.
>
> there is, however, a subtle behaviour change, I think.
>
> previously, in some cases [?], pr_info("SysRq : ") from __handle_sysrq()
> would flush logbuf messages. now we have that "break out of console_unlock()
> loop even though there are pending messages, there is another CPU doing
> printk()". so sysrb-b instead of looping in console_unlock() goes directly
> to emergency_restart(). without the change it would have continued looping
> in console_unlock() and would have called emergency_restart() only when
> "console_seq == log_next_seq".
>
> now... the "subtle" part here is that we had that thing:
> - *IF* __handle_sysrq() grabs the console_sem then it will not
> return from console_unlock() until logbuf is empty. so
> concurrent printk() messages won't get lost.
>
> what we have now is:
> - if there are concurrent printk() then __handle_sysrq() does not
> fully flush the logbuf *even* if it grabbed the console_sem.
the change goes further. I did express some of my concerns during the KS,
I'll just bring them to the list.
we now always shift printing from a save - scheduleable - context to
a potentially unsafe one - atomic. by example:
CPU0 CPU1~CPU10 CPU11
console_lock()
printk();
console_unlock() IRQ
set console_owner printk()
sees console_owner
set console_waiter
sees console_waiter
break
console_unlock()
^^^^ lockup [?]
so we are forcibly moving console_unlock() from safe CPU0 to unsafe CPU11.
previously we would continue printing from a schedulable context.
another case. bare with me.
suppose that call_console_drivers() is slower than printk() -> log_store(),
which is often the case.
now assume the following:
CPU0 CPU1
IRQ IRQ
printk() printk()
printk() printk()
printk() printk()
which probably could have been handled something like this:
CPU0 CPU1
IRQ IRQ
printk() printk()
log_store()
log_store()
console_unlock()
call_console_drivers()
printk()
log_store()
goto again;
call_console_drivers()
printk()
log_store()
goto again;
call_console_drivers()
printk()
log_store()
console_unlock()
call_console_drivers()
printk()
log_store()
console_unlock()
call_console_drivers()
so CPU0 printed all the messages.
CPU1 simply did 3 * log_store()
// + spent some cycles on logbuf_lock spin_lock
// + console_sem trylock
but now every CPU will do call_console_drivers() + busy loop.
CPU0 CPU1
IRQ IRQ
printk() printk()
log_store()
log_store()
console_unlock()
set console_owner
sees console_owner
sets console_waiter
spin
call_console_drivers()
sees console_waiter
break
printk()
log_store()
console_unlock()
set console_owner
sees console_owner
sets console_waiter
spin
call_console_drivers()
sees console_waiter
break
printk()
log_store()
console_unlock()
set console_owner
sees console_owner
sets console_waiter
spin
call_console_drivers()
sees console_waiter
break
printk()
log_store()
console_unlock()
set console_owner
sees console_owner
sets console_waiter
spin
.... and so on
which not only brings the cost of call_console_drivers() from
CPU's own printk(), but it also brings the cost [busy spin] of
call_console_drivers() happening on _another_ CPU. am I wrong?
-ss
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
