On (09/06/19 17:32), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > [..]
> > > I mean, really, do we need to keep calling wake up if it
> > > probably never even executed?
> >
> > I guess ratelimiting you are talking about ("if it probably never even
> > executed") would be to check if we have already called wake up on the
> > log_wait ->head. For that we need to, at least, take log_wait spin_lock
> > and check that ->head is still in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; which is (quite,
> > but not exactly) close to what wake_up_interruptible() does - it doesn't
> > wake up the same task twice, it bails out on `p->state & state' check.
>
> I have just realized that only sleeping tasks are in the waitqueue.
> It is already handled by waitqueue_active() check.
Yes.
> I am afraid that we could not ratelimit the wakeups. The userspace
> loggers might then miss the last lines for a long.
That's my concern as well.
> We could move wake_up_klogd() back to console_unlock(). But it might
> end up with a back-and-forth games according to who is currently
> complaining.
We still don't need irq_work, tho.
If we can do
printk()->console_unlock()->up()->try_to_wake_up()
then we can also do
printk() -> try_to_wake_up()
It's LOGLEVEL_SCHED which tells us if we can try_to_wake_up()
or cannot.
> Sigh, I still suggest to ratelimit the warning about failed
> allocation.
Hard to imagine how many printk()-s we will have to ratelimit.
To imagine NET maintainers being OK with this is even harder.
-ss
