From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk_legacy_map: use LD_WAIT_CONFIG instead of LD_WAIT_SLEEP
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:49:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPneEnDQmHhpvRkG@pathway.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251022154115.GA22400@redhat.com>
On Wed 2025-10-22 17:41:15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> printk_legacy_map is used on !PREEMPT_RT to avoid false positives from
> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING about raw_spinlock/spinlock nesting.
>
> However, LD_WAIT_SLEEP is not exactly right; it fools lockdep as if it
> is fine to acquire a sleeping lock.
>
> Change DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(printk_legacy_map) to use LD_WAIT_CONFIG.
>
> (We can also make printk_legacy_allow_spinlock_enter/exit() depend on
> !PREEMPT_RT && CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING)
I do not have strong opinion about adding (&& CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING).
This dependency is already handled in LD_WAIT_CONFIG definition.
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Anyway, the change makes sense to me. It seems that this better fits
the purpose.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
See a note below.
> ---
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 5aee9ffb16b9..f11b2f31999b 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -3007,7 +3007,7 @@ bool printk_get_next_message(struct printk_message *pmsg, u64 seq,
> * false positive. For PREEMPT_RT the false positive condition does not
> * occur.
From the comment, it was not obvious to me why the condition does not
occur for PREEMPT_RT. I had to check the commit message from the
commit daeed1595b4ddf314b ("printk: Avoid false positive lockdep
report for legacy printing").
<paste>
However, on PREEMPT_RT the printing path from atomic context is
always avoided and the console driver is always invoked from a
dedicated thread. Thus the lockdep splat on !PREEMPT_RT is a
false positive.
</paste>
This is much more clear. It might make sense to improve the comment,
for example:
<proposal>
/*
* Legacy console printing from printk() caller context does not respect
* raw_spinlock/spinlock nesting. However, on PREEMPT_RT the printing
* path from atomic context is always avoided and the console driver
* is always invoked from a dedicated thread. Thus the lockdep splat
* on !PREEMPT_RT is a false positive.
*
* This map is used to temporarily establish LD_WAIT_CONFIG context for the
* console write() callback when legacy printing to avoid false positive
* lockdep complaints, thus allowing lockdep to continue to function for
* real issues.
*/
</proposal>
But it can be done in a separate patch...
> *
> - * This map is used to temporarily establish LD_WAIT_SLEEP context for the
> + * This map is used to temporarily establish LD_WAIT_CONFIG context for the
> * console write() callback when legacy printing to avoid false positive
> * lockdep complaints, thus allowing lockdep to continue to function for
> * real issues.
> @@ -3016,7 +3016,7 @@ bool printk_get_next_message(struct printk_message *pmsg, u64 seq,
> static inline void printk_legacy_allow_spinlock_enter(void) { }
> static inline void printk_legacy_allow_spinlock_exit(void) { }
> #else
> -static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(printk_legacy_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> +static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(printk_legacy_map, LD_WAIT_CONFIG);
>
> static inline void printk_legacy_allow_spinlock_enter(void)
> {
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I would take this patch via the printk tree. But I am going to wait
for feedback from others (John, Sebastian, ...).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-23 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-22 15:41 Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 7:49 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2025-10-23 8:58 ` John Ogness
2025-10-23 10:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 9:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 10:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 14:26 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:06 ` John Ogness
2025-10-23 15:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:46 ` John Ogness
2025-10-23 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 19:14 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 9:35 ` Petr Mladek
2025-10-24 10:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 12:57 ` Petr Mladek
2025-10-24 15:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-24 10:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-24 10:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 11:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-26 15:07 ` [PATCH v3] " Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-27 8:28 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-27 8:37 ` John Ogness
2025-10-29 13:15 ` Petr Mladek
2025-10-29 17:00 ` 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=aPneEnDQmHhpvRkG@pathway.suse.cz \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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