lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk/nmi: restore printk_func in nmi_panic
On (02/29/16 11:31), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > > > index f4fa2b2..3ee33d5 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > > > @@ -469,10 +469,12 @@ do { \
> > > > cpu = raw_smp_processor_id(); \
> > > > old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, PANIC_CPU_INVALID, cpu); \
> > > > \
> > > > - if (old_cpu == PANIC_CPU_INVALID) \
> > > > + if (old_cpu == PANIC_CPU_INVALID) { \
> > > > + printk_nmi_exit(); \
> > >
> > > This might end up in a deadlock that printk_nmi() wanted to avoid.
> >
> > aha, I see.
> >
> > > I think about a compromise. We should try to get the messages
> > > out only when kdump is not enabled.
> >
> > can we zap_locks() if we are on nmi_panic()->panic()->console_flush_on_panic() path?
>
> That is the problem. zap_locks() is not a solution.
>
> First, it handles only lockbuf_lock and console_sem. There are other
> locks used by particular consoles that might cause a deadlock.

yes, well, that's true for panic() in general. we can't take care of
all of the locks that possibly could have been in busy state at the
time CPU received STOP_IPI or entered panic(). we can't even safely
iterate all of the consoles and call ->reset() on them (provided that
such struct console callback will ever be implemented) because
smp_send_stop() is free to leave some CPUs online.


> Second, re-initializing locks is dangerous of its own. If they are
> released by some other CPU that is still running, you might end up
> in a deadlock because of a double release. In fact, I think that it
> actually increases the risk. If there are more than 2 CPUs than
> it is more likely that a printk is running on another CPU than
> on the current one.

panic calls debug_locks_off(), so chances *seem* to be lower.

hm... we are (sort of) on the safe side if we know that smp_send_stop() has
stopped all the CPUs but panic cpu; so zap_locks() is safe (to some extent of
course) when we know that num_online_cpus() == 1 in console_flush_on_panic().

-ss

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-29 13:01    [W:0.203 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site