mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>, KY Sri nivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing too long
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:25:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160106122517.GC24046@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160106064836.GC781@swordfish>

On Wed 06-01-16 15:48:36, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/05/16 15:37), Jan Kara wrote:
> > > How about setting 'sync_print' to 'true' in...
> > >   bust_spinlocks() /* only set to true */
> > > or
> > >   console_verbose() /* um... may be... */
> > > or
> > >   having a separate one-liner for that
> > > 
> > > void console_panic_mode(void)
> > > {
> > > 	sync_print = true;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > and call it early in panic(), before we send out IPI_STOP.
> > 
> > I like using console_verbose() for setting sync_print to true. That will
> > likely be more reliable than using oops in progress. After all
> > console_verbose() is used like console_panic_mode() anyway and in quite a
> > few places so it is a reasonable match.
> 
> another corner case.
> 
> a quote from -mm a74b6533ead8 http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg98990.html
> 
> :    This patch reduces the probability of such a lockup by introducing a
> :    specialized kernel thread (oom_reaper) which tries to reclaim additional
> :    memory by preemptively reaping the anonymous or swapped out memory owned
> :    by the oom victim under an assumption that such a memory won't be needed
> :    when its owner is killed and kicked from the userspace anyway.  There is
> :    one notable exception to this, though, if the OOM victim was in the
> :    process of coredumping the result would be incomplete.  This is considered
> :    a reasonable constrain because the overall system health is more important
> :    than debugability of a particular application.
> :
> :    A kernel thread has been chosen because we need a reliable way of
> :    invocation so workqueue context is not appropriate because all the workers
> :    might be busy (e.g.  allocating memory).  Kswapd which sounds like another
> :    good fit is not appropriate as well because it might get blocked on locks
> :    during reclaim as well.
> 
> particularly this "workqueue context is not appropriate because all the workers
> might be busy (e.g.  allocating memory)" part. I think printk should switch to
> sync mode in this case, since printk now does queue_work(system_wq, work).
> um... console_verbose() call from oom kill? but it'll be nice to return back
> to async mode once (if) memory pressure goes away.

Hum, yes, some mechanism to switch to sync printing in case work cannot be
executed for a long time is probably needed. I'll think about it.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-06 12:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-10 14:52 Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-10 15:24 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-11  4:27 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-11  6:29   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-22 13:47 ` Jan Kara
2015-12-22 14:48   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-23  1:54   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-23  3:37     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-23  3:57       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-23  4:15         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-05 14:37     ` Jan Kara
2016-01-06  1:41       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-06  6:48       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-06 12:25         ` Jan Kara [this message]
2016-01-11 13:25           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-31  2:44   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-31  3:13     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-12-31  4:58       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-05 14:48         ` Jan Kara
2016-01-06  3:38           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-06  8:36             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-06 10:21               ` Jan Kara
2016-01-06 11:10                 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-11 12:54   ` Petr Mladek
2016-01-12 14:00     ` Jan Kara
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-10-26  4:52 [PATCH 0/6 v2] printk: Softlockup avoidance Jan Kara
2015-10-26  4:52 ` [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing too long Jan Kara
2016-03-01 17:22   ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-03-02  9:30     ` Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160106122517.GC24046@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kys@microsoft.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome