On 2015/6/1 21:06, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 29-05-15 13:50:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:46:23 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> The main source of deadlocks caused by printk() in NMI context has been
>>> solved by the commit a9edc88093287 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack
>>> trace on all CPUs").
>>>
>>> But there are still few warnings printed in the NMI code that could
>>> case a deadlock. For example, see the freeze discussed at
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/20/481
>>
>> I'm not (yet) convinced that we want the entire patchset btw. Do we
>> really want to try to semi-support printk from NMI? With a rather
>> nasty set of hacks?
>>
>> Why not just delete the offending printks?
> And what about WARN_ONs and BUG_ONs? Delete as well? Or just don't print
> anything when we are in NMI? I agree that NMI is so problematic context
> that restricting printk there makes some sence. OTOH propagating
> information from NMI to user is useful as well so I'm somewhat undecided.
>
> Honza
>
I think that delete all printks in NMI context is not a good solution.
because some information is very useful to user.
The commit a9edc88093287 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack trace on all CPUs")
solved the deadlock problem only in arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler() by
replacing the printk to a special print function (nmi_vprintk). But all the
other NMI handlers still use the original printk.
How about replacing printk function earlier? we can replace printk function
before we calling default_do_nmi(arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c) and replace back
after calling.
Is it a feasible solution? or does it introduce other problems?
Best Regards
Wang Long
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
