From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751834AbcCUA41 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:56:27 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:52169 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750787AbcCUA4Z (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:56:25 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:56:08 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
Message-ID: <20160321005608.GQ5220@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1458483191-3596-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1458483191-3596-2-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160321000647.GP5220@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160321004347.GA563@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160321004347.GA563@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:43:47AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/21/16 09:06), Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:13:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > > +	if (!sync_print) {
> > > +		if (in_sched) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * @in_sched messages may come too early, when we don't
> > > +			 * yet have @printk_kthread. We can't print deferred
> > > +			 * messages directly, because this may deadlock, route
> > > +			 * them via IRQ context.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			__this_cpu_or(printk_pending,
> > > +					PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> > > +			irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> > > +		} else if (printk_kthread && !in_panic) {
> > > +			/* Offload printing to a schedulable context. */
> > > +			wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> > 
> > It will not print the "lockup suspected" message at all, for e.g. rq->lock,
> > p->pi_lock and any locks which are used within wake_up_process().
> 
> this will switch to old SYNC printk() mode should such a lockup ever
> happen, which is a giant advantage over any other implementation; doing
> wake_up_process() within the 'we can detect recursive printk() here'
> gives us better control.
> 
> why
>   printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ...
> is better?

What is IRQ? And I didn't say the recursion is good. I just said it can be
avoid without using the last resort.

> 
> 
> > Furtheremore, any printk() within wake_up_process() cannot work at all, as
> > well.
> 
> there is printk_deferred() which has LOGLEVEL_SCHED and which must be used
> in sched functions.

It would be good for all scheduler code to use the printk_deferred() as you
said, but it's not true yet.

> 
> 	-ss