lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Use line-buffered printk() for lockdep messages.
On Fri 2018-11-02 22:31:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot is sometimes getting mixed output like below due to concurrent
> printk(). Mitigate such output by using line-buffered printk() API.
>
> @@ -2421,18 +2458,20 @@ static void check_chain_key(struct task_struct *curr)
> print_usage_bug_scenario(struct held_lock *lock)
> {
> struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(lock);
> + struct printk_buffer *buf = get_printk_buffer();
>
> printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
> printk(" CPU0\n");
> printk(" ----\n");
> - printk(" lock(");
> - __print_lock_name(class);
> - printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
> + printk_buffered(buf, " lock(");
> + __print_lock_name(class, buf);
> + printk_buffered(buf, ");\n");
> printk(" <Interrupt>\n");
> - printk(" lock(");
> - __print_lock_name(class);
> - printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
> + printk_buffered(buf, " lock(");
> + __print_lock_name(class, buf);
> + printk_buffered(buf, ");\n");
> printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
> + put_printk_buffer(buf);
> }
>
> static int

I really hope that the maze of pr_cont() calls in lockdep.c is the most
complicated one that we would meet.

Anyway, the following comes to my mind:

1. The mixing of normal and buffered printk calls is a bit confusing
and error prone. It would make sense to use the buffered printk
everywhere in the given section of code even when it is not
strictly needed.

2. I would replace "buf" with "pbuf" or "prbuf" to distinguish it a
bit from other eventual buffers.


Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-07 16:19    [W:0.201 / U:3.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site