Hello,
On (04/20/17 15:11), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> Good analyze. I would summarize it that we need to be careful of:
>
> + logbug_lock
> + PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT
> + locks used by console drivers
>
> The first two things are easy to check. Except that a check for logbuf_lock
> might produce false negatives. The last check is very hard.
>
> > so at the moment what I can think of is something like
> >
> > -- check this_cpu_read(printk_context) in NMI prink
> >
> > -- if we are NOT in printk_safe on this CPU, then do printk_deferred()
> > and bypass `nmi_print_seq' buffer
>
> I would add also a check for logbuf_lock.
> > -- if we are in printk_safe
> > -- well... bad luck... have a bigger buffer.
>
> Yup, we do the best effort while still trying to stay on the safe
> side.
>
> I have cooked up a patch based on this. It uses printk_deferred()
> in NMI when it is safe. Note that console_flush_on_panic() will
> try to get them on the console when a kdump is not generated.
> I believe that it will help Steven.
OK. I need to look more at the patch. It does more than I'd expected/imagined.
[..]
> void printk_nmi_enter(void)
> {
> - this_cpu_or(printk_context, PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK);
> + /*
> + * The size of the extra per-CPU buffer is limited. Use it
> + * only when really needed.
> + */
> + if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) & PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK ||
> + raw_spin_is_locked(&logbuf_lock)) {
> + this_cpu_or(printk_context, PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK);
> + } else {
> + this_cpu_or(printk_context, PRINTK_NMI_DEFERRED_CONTEXT_MASK);
> + }
> }
well... the logbuf_lock can temporarily be locked from another CPU. I'd say
that spin_is_locked() has better chances for false positive than
this_cpu_read(printk_context). because this_cpu_read(printk_context) depends
only on this CPU state, while spin_is_locked() depends on all CPUs. and the
idea with this_cpu_read(printk_context) was that we check if the logbuf_lock
was locked from this particular CPU.
I agree that this_cpu_read(printk_context) covers slightly more than
logbuf_lock scope, so we may get positive this_cpu_read(printk_context)
with unlocked logbuf_lock, but I don't tend to think that it's a big
problem.
wouldn't something as simple as below do the trick?
// absolutely and completely untested //
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk_safe.c b/kernel/printk/printk_safe.c
index 033e50a7d706..c7477654c5b1 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk_safe.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk_safe.c
@@ -303,7 +303,10 @@ static int vprintk_nmi(const char *fmt, va_list args)
{
struct printk_safe_seq_buf *s = this_cpu_ptr(&nmi_print_seq);
- return printk_safe_log_store(s, fmt, args);
+ if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) & PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)
+ return printk_safe_log_store(s, fmt, args);
+
+ return vprintk_emit(0, LOGLEVEL_SCHED, NULL, 0, fmt, args);
}
-ss
