On (01/11/18 10:34), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > except that handing off a console_sem to atomic task when there
> > is O(logbuf) > watchdog_thresh is a regression, basically...
> > it is what it is.
>
> How this could be a regression? Is not the victim that handles
> other printk's random? What protected the atomic task to
> handle the other printks before this patch?
the non-atomic -> atomic context console_sem transfer. we previously
would have kept the console_sem owner to its non-atomic owner. we now
will make sure that if printk from atomic context happens then it will
make it to console_unlock() loop.
emphasis on O(logbuf) > watchdog_thresh.
- if the patch's goal is to bound (not necessarily to watchdog's threshold)
the amount of time we spend in console_unlock(), then the patch is kinda
overcomplicated. but no further questions in this case.
- but if the patch's goal is to bound (to lockup threshold) the amount of
time spent in console_unlock() in order to avoid lockups [uh, a reason],
then the patch is rather oversimplified.
claiming that for any given A, B, C the following is always true
A * B < C
where
A is the amount of data to print in the worst case
B the time call_console_drivers() needs to print a single
char to all registered and enabled consoles
C the watchdog's threshold
is not really a step forward.
and the "last console_sem owner prints all pending messages" rule
is still there.
> Or do you have a system that started to suffer from softlockups
> with this patchset and did not do this before?
[..]
> Do you know about any system where this patch made the softlockup
> deterministically or statistically more likely, please?
I have explained many, many times why my boards die just like before.
why would I bother collecting any numbers...
-ss
