On Wed 2018-01-10 12:52:20, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:24:18 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The commit ("printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance
> > console writes") made vprintk_emit() and console_unlock() even more
> > complicated.
> >
> > This patch extracts the new code into 3 helper functions. They should
> > help to keep it rather self-contained. It will be easier to use and
> > maintain.
> >
> > This patch just shuffles the existing code. It does not change
> > the functionality.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/printk/printk.c | 242 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 7e6459abba43..6217c280e6c1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -86,15 +86,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(console_drivers);
> > static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
> > .name = "console_lock"
> > };
> > -static struct lockdep_map console_owner_dep_map = {
> > - .name = "console_owner"
> > -};
> > #endif
> >
> > -static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(console_owner_lock);
> > -static struct task_struct *console_owner;
> > -static bool console_waiter;
> > -
> > enum devkmsg_log_bits {
> > __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON = 0,
> > __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF,
> > @@ -1551,6 +1544,143 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(syslog, int, type, char __user *, buf, int, len)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * Special console_lock variants that help to reduce the risk of soft-lockups.
> > + * They allow to pass console_lock to another printk() call using a busy wait.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +static struct lockdep_map console_owner_dep_map = {
> > + .name = "console_owner"
> > +};
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(console_owner_lock);
> > +static struct task_struct *console_owner;
> > +static bool console_waiter;
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * console_lock_spinning_enable - mark beginning of code where another
> > + * thread might safely busy wait
> > + *
> > + * This might be called in sections where the current console_lock owner
>
>
> "might be"? It has to be called in sections where the current
> console_lock owner can not sleep. It's basically saying "console lock is
> now acting like a spinlock".
I am afraid that both explanations are confusing. Your one sounds like
it must be called every time we enter non-preemptive context in
console_unlock. What about the following?
* This is basically saying that "console lock is now acting like
* a spinlock". It can be called _only_ in sections where the current
* console_lock owner could not sleep. Also it must be ready to hand
* over the lock at the end of the section.
> > + * cannot sleep. It is a signal that another thread might start busy
> > + * waiting for console_lock.
> > + */
All the other changes look good to me. I will use them in the next version.
Best Regards,
Petr
--
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>
