On Fri 2016-08-19 21:00:07, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 19-08-16 11:54:55, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2016-08-19 15:32:36, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (08/18/16 12:56), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > The advantage of the printk_func trick is that it is transparent.
> > > > You do not need to modify any existing functions used by WARN()/BUG()
> > > > macros.
> > >
> > > good point.
> > >
> > > so something like below, perhaps. I'm less sure about
> > > deferred BUG()/BUG_ON():
> > >
> > > #define DEFERRED_BUG() do { \
> > > printk_deferred_enter(); \
> > > BUG(); \
> > > printk_deferred_exit(); \
> > > } while (0) \
> > >
> > > #define DEFERRED_BUG_ON(condition) do { \
> > > printk_deferred_enter(); \
> > > BUG_ON(condition); \
> > > printk_deferred_exit(); \
> > > } while (0)
> > >
> > > depending on .config BUG() may never return back -- passing control
> > > to do_exit(), so printk_deferred_exit() won't be executed. thus we
> > > probably need to have a per-cpu variable that would indicate that
> > > we are in deferred_bug. hm... but do we really need deferred BUG()
> > > in the first place?
> >
> > Good question. I am not aware of any BUG_ON() that would be called from
> > wake_up_process() but it is hard to check everything.
> >
> > A conservative approach would be to force synchronous printk from
> > BUG_ON().
>
> Just a quick thought: Cannot we just do printk_deferred_enter() when we are
> about to call into the scheduler from printk code and printk_deferred_exit()
> when leaving it? That would look like the least error-prone way how
> handling this kind of recursion...
>
> OTOH there's also the other possible direction for the recursion when we
> are in the scheduler, holding some scheduler locks, decide to WARN which
> enters printk, that ends up calling wake_up_process() which deadlocks
> on scheduler locks... I don't see how to handle this type of recursion
> inside the printk code itself easily and so far the answer was - use
> printk_deferred() in the scheduler and don't use WARN...
>
> Hum, maybe we could add lockdep annotation to a WARN_ON and BUG_ON macros so
> that it would grab and release console_sem (even if the condition is false).
> That way we'd get lockdep splats for all the possible WARN_ON and BUG_ON
> calls that could deadlock.
The idea is interesting but I think that we do not want the fake
grab/release of the console_sem.
We use console_trylock() in vprintk_emit(). Please note the "try"
variant. So it is safe to call a nested printk() from the console code.
IMHO, we want to avoid calling console from the scheduler code because:
1. console is slow and we do not want to block the scheduler.
2. console_unlock() calls wake_up_process() and we do not want
a deadlock by the scheduler locks.
Therefore I think that we want to detect something specific
from the scheduler that is also reachable from WARN()/printk().
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: My brain rotated several times this day around these problems.
I hope that my opinion still makes some sense :-)
