On Tue 2019-11-19 09:41:19, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/18 16:27), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > @@ -2027,8 +2027,11 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> > > > pending_output = (curr_log_seq != log_next_seq);
> > > > logbuf_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
> > > >
> > > > + if (!pending_output)
> > > > + return printed_len;
> > > > +
> > > > /* If called from the scheduler, we can not call up(). */
> > > > - if (!in_sched && pending_output) {
> > > > + if (!in_sched) {
> > > > /*
> > > > * Disable preemption to avoid being preempted while holding
> > > > * console_sem which would prevent anyone from printing to
> > > > @@ -2043,10 +2046,11 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> > > > if (console_trylock_spinning())
> > > > console_unlock();
> > > > preempt_enable();
> > > > - }
> > > >
> > > > - if (pending_output)
> > > > + wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
> >
> > I do not like this. As a result, normal printk() will always deadlock
> > in the scheduler code, including WARN() calls. The chance of the
> > deadlock is small now. It happens only when there is another
> > process waiting for console_sem.
>
> Why would it *always* deadlock? If this is the case, why we don't *always*
> deadlock doing the very same wake_up_process() from console_unlock()?
I speak about _normal_ printk() and not about printk_deferred().
wake_up_process() is called in console_unlock() only when
sem->wait_list is not empty, see up() in kernel/locking/semaphore.c.
printk() itself uses console_trylock() and does not wait.
I believe that this is the rason why printk_sched() was added
so late in 2012. It was more than 10 years after adding
the semaphore into console_unlock(). IMHO, the deadlock
was rare. Of course, it was also hard to debug but it
would not take 10 years.
Best Regards,
Petr
