Hi!
> From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit ab6f762f0f53162d41497708b33c9a3236d3609e upstream.
>
> printk_deferred(), similarly to printk_safe/printk_nmi, does not
> immediately attempt to print a new message on the consoles, avoiding
> calls into non-reentrant kernel paths, e.g. scheduler or timekeeping,
> which potentially can deadlock the system.
>
> Those printk() flavors, instead, rely on per-CPU flush irq_work to print
> messages from safer contexts. For same reasons (recursive scheduler or
> timekeeping calls) printk() uses per-CPU irq_work in order to wake up
> user space syslog/kmsg readers.
>
> However, only printk_safe/printk_nmi do make sure that per-CPU areas
> have been initialised and that it's safe to modify per-CPU irq_work.
> This means that, for instance, should printk_deferred() be invoked "too
> early", that is before per-CPU areas are initialised, printk_deferred()
> will perform illegal per-CPU access.
>
> Lech Perczak [0] reports that after commit 1b710b1b10ef ("char/random:
> silence a lockdep splat with printk()") user-space syslog/kmsg readers
> are not able to read new kernel messages.
Is this still needed in 4.19? 1b710b1b10ef was reverted in 4.19, so
there should not be any user-visible problems...
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
