Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1615134

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

From Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Date 2017-04-03 14:00 +0200
Message-ID <ts8Ol-6mY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <ti0fn-8f0-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


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

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 14:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> - 2017-04-04 15:10 +0200

csiph-web