lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCHv2 3/4] serial: introduce uart_port locking helpers
On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 12:12:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/16/18 14:04), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > - The first entry point is console ->write() callback, which we call
> > from printk(). A possible deadlock scenario there is:
> >
> > CPU0
> > <NMI>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) << deadlock
> > serial_foo_write()
> > call_console_drivers()
> > console_unlock()
> > console_flush_on_panic()
> > panic()
> > <NMI/>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags)
> > serial_foo_write()
> > call_console_drivers()
> > console_unlock()
> > printk()
> > ...
>
> [..]
> > - The rest (of entry points) requires a bit different handling.
> > Let's take a look at the following backtrace:
> >
> > CPU0
> > <IRQ>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) << deadlock
> > serial_foo_write()
> > call_console_drivers()
> > console_unlock()
> > printk()
> > __queue_work()
> > tty_flip_buffer_push()
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags)
> > serial_foo_handle_IRQ()
> > <IRQ/>
> >
> > Serial drivers invoke tons of core kernel functions - WQ, MM, etc. All
> > of which may printk() in various cases. So we can't really just
> > "remove those printk-s". The simples way to address this seems to be
> > PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK.
>
> serial/UART and printk guys, sorry to bother you, do you hate this
> idea of removing console_driver->CORE KERNEL->printk->console_driver
> deadlock path? Or is there any chance we can move forward?

If done in a sane manner, no objection from me.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-12 12:09    [W:0.816 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site