On 2023/06/26 19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:25:56PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2023/06/26 17:12, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-24 15:54:12 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> Why not to do the same on the end side?
>>>>
>>>> static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
>>>> {
>>>> - seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>> do_raw_write_seqcount_end(s);
>>>> + seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I don't have a compelling argument for doing it. It is probably better
>>> to release the lock from lockdep's point of view and then really release
>>> it (so it can't be acquired before it is released).
>>
>> We must do it because this is a source of possible printk() deadlock.
>> Otherwise, I will nack on PATCH 2/2.
>
> Don't be like that... just hate on prink like the rest of us. In fact,
> i've been patching out the actual printk code for years because its
> unusable garbage.
>
> Will this actually still be a problem once all the fancy printk stuff
> lands? That shouldn't do synchronous prints except to 'atomic' consoles
> by default IIRC.
Commit 1007843a9190 ("mm/page_alloc: fix potential deadlock on zonelist_update_seq
seqlock") was applied to 4.14-stable trees, and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is available
since 5.3. Thus, we want a fix which can be applied to 5.4-stable and later.
This means that we can't count on all the fancy printk stuff being available.
