On (09/29/16 15:00), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > @@ -1791,7 +1791,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> > zap_locks();
> > }
> >
> > - lockdep_off();
> > + alt_printk_enter();
>
> IMHO, we could not longer enter vprintk_emit() recursively. The same
> section that was guarded by logbuf_cpu is guarded by
> alt_printk_enter()/exit() now.
you might be very right here. I'll take a look.
> IMHO, we could remove all the logic around the recursion. Then we
> could even disable/enable irqs inside alt_printk_enter()/exit().
I was thinking of doing something like this; but that would require
storing 'unsigned long' flags in per-cpu data
alt_enter()
{
unsinged long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
ctx = this_cpu_ptr();
ctx->flags = flags;
...
}
alt_exit()
{
ctx = this_cpu_ptr();
...
local_irq_restore(ctx->flags);
}
and the decision was to keep `unsigned long flags' on stack in the
alt_enter/exit caller. besides in most of the cases we already have
it (in vprintk_emit() and console_unlock()).
but I can certainly hide these details in alt_enter/exit.
> And to correct myself from the previous mail. It is enough to disable
> IRQs. It is enough to make sure that we will not preempt and will
> stay on the same CPU.
ah, no prob.
> > @@ -2479,7 +2490,9 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> > */
> > raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> > retry = console_seq != log_next_seq;
> > - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> > + alt_printk_exit();
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> We should mention that this patch makes an obsolete artefact from
> printk_deferred(). It opens the door for another big cleanup and
> relief.
do you mean that, once alt_printk is done properly, we can drop
printk_deferred()? I was thinking of it, but decided not to
mention/touch it in this patch set.
-ss
