On Tue 2021-03-02 11:45:27, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-01, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> >> The kmsg_dumper can be called from any context and CPU, possibly
> >> from multiple CPUs simultaneously. Since the writing of the buffer
> >> can occur from a later scheduled work queue, the oops buffer must
> >> be protected against simultaneous dumping.
> >>
> >> Use an atomic bit to mark when the buffer is protected. Release the
> >> protection in between setting the buffer and the actual writing in
> >> order for a possible panic (immediate write) to be written during
> >> the scheduling of a previous oops (delayed write).
> >
> > Just to be sure. You did not use spin lock to prevent problems
> > with eventual double unlock in panic(). Do I get it correctly,
> > please?
>
> I do not understand what possible double unlock you are referring to.
I was wrong. I meant the tricks that are under in console drivrers,
for example:
static void mvebu_uart_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s,
unsigned int count)
{
int locked = 1;
if (oops_in_progress)
locked = spin_trylock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
else
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
/* do the job */
if (locked)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
}
But this is not a problem here because the kmsg dumper bails out
when the lock could not be taken.
> I chose not to use spinlocks because I wanted something that does not
> cause any scheduling or preemption side-effects for mtd. The mtd dumper
> sometimes dumps directly, sometimes delayed (via scheduled work), and
> they use different mtd callbacks in different contexts.
>
> mtd_write() expects to be called in a non-atomic context. The callbacks
> can take a mutex.
Makes sense. Could you please mention this in the commit message?
Best Regards,
Petr
