From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:53:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170403115311.GC7867@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170306124554.828-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
On (03/06/17 21:45), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> printk kthread changes the behavior of printk in one _corner case_.
> The corner case is quite interesting and actually consists of two corner
> cases. Suppose on SMP system there is only one CPU that printk()-s a lot,
> the rest of CPUs don't lock console_sem and don't printk(). Previously
> that printing CPU had been throttling itself (*) because of console drivers
> call for every printk():
>
> CPU0
>
> printk("a")
> console_unlock()
> call_console_drivers("a")
>
> ...
>
> printk("z")
> console_unlock()
> call_console_drivers("z")
>
> * Given that no other CPU locks the console_sem.
>
> With printk kthread the case turns into this one:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> printk("a")
> wake_up printk_kthread
> ... printk_kthread
> printk("k") console_unlock()
> ... call_console_drivers("a")
> printk("z") call_console_drivers("b")
> call_console_drivers("c")
> ...
>
>
> The second 'corner case' part here is that CPU0 may be much faster
> than printing CPU, which may result in dropped printk messages.
>
> This all is absolutely possible even with out the printk-kthread.
> A single console_lock() call from CPUx will result in exactly the
> same condition. So it's not necessarily a regression. But there may
> be some scenarios in the kernel that may suffer from this change.
> From the top of my head -- sysrq backtrace dump, and, probably, OOM
> print out and backtrace dump.
there is another possibility here.
being always reschedulable potentially can put us at risk of having
unpleasant situations when printk_kthread is getting preempted too
often (well, who knows what can happen on the system), which can slow
down logbuf emit process (printk_kthread) up to the point when printk()
CPUs will force log_store() to begin dropping the messages. this can
happen.
-ss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-03 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-06 12:45 Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-06 12:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/4] " Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-22 16:40 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-23 5:12 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-23 10:40 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-24 5:20 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-06 12:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/4] printk: offload printing from wake_up_klogd_work_func() Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-17 12:19 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-18 9:57 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-20 16:09 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-21 4:01 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-23 9:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-23 12:11 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-06 12:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/4] kernel, power: disable printk_kthread in unsafe places Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-22 15:38 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-06 12:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] printk: enable printk offloading Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-22 15:43 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-22 16:40 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-22 17:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-23 4:09 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-23 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-24 1:59 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-24 4:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-24 14:43 ` Petr Mladek
2017-03-25 0:18 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-23 12:01 ` Petr Mladek
2017-04-03 11:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2017-04-04 12:59 ` Petr Mladek
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=20170403115311.GC7867@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain \
--to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®