On (03/16/16 16:30), Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Do you mean the wake_up_process() in console_unlock?
no, I meant wake_up_process(printk_kthread), the newly added one.
-- if we are going to have wake_up_process() in wake_up_klogd_work_func(),
then we need `in_sched' message to potentially trigger a recursion chain
wake_up_klogd_work_func()->wake_up_process()->printk()->wake_up_process()->printk()...
to break this printk()->wake_up_process()->printk(), we need wake_up_process()
to
be under the logbuf lock; so vprintk_emit()'s if (logbuf_cpu == this_cpu) will
act.
-- if we are going to have wake_up_process() in console_unlock(), then
console_unlock()->{up(), wake_up_process()}->printk()->{console_lock(),
console_unlock()}->{up(), wake_up_process()}->printk()...
is undetectable... by the time console_unlock() calls wake_up_process() there
are no printk() locks that this CPU owns.
> I said they should be kept *out of* the critical section. :-)
> Otherwise, it can recurse us forever.
can you explain?
-ss
