Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1309986 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-15 10:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-15 10:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent deadlock in spin_dump() by console_sem Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-01-15 10:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent deadlock in spin_dump() by console_sem Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-01-15 10:40 +0100
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:30 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent deadlock in spin_dump() by console_sem |
| Message-ID | <qR8RJ-464-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Deadlock occured when using CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, in spin_dump().
Backtrace prints printk() -> console_trylock() -> do_raw_spin_lock() ->
spin_dump() -> printk()... infinitely.
If spin_bug() is called from a function like printk() which is using
console lock, we should prevent the debug spinlock code from calling
printk() any more in the context.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
---
kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c | 10 ++++++++++
kernel/printk/printk.c | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
index 0374a59..b339c5e 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
@@ -67,11 +67,21 @@ static void spin_dump(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
dump_stack();
}
+extern int is_console_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock);
+
static void spin_bug(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
{
if (!debug_locks_off())
return;
+ /*
+ * If this function is called from a function like printk()
+ * which is trying console lock, we cannot call printk() any
+ * more. Or it's obviously deadlock!
+ */
+ if (unlikely(is_console_lock(lock)))
+ return;
+
spin_dump(lock, msg);
}
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 2ce8826..50ea552 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -119,6 +119,11 @@ static int __down_trylock_console_sem(unsigned long ip)
up(&console_sem);\
} while (0)
+int is_console_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ return &console_sem.lock == lock;
+}
+
/*
* This is used for debugging the mess that is the VT code by
* keeping track if we have the console semaphore held. It's
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent deadlock in spin_dump() by console_sem |
| Message-ID | <qR91o-49P-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1309986 |
* Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> Deadlock occured when using CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, in spin_dump().
> Backtrace prints printk() -> console_trylock() -> do_raw_spin_lock() ->
> spin_dump() -> printk()... infinitely.
>
> If spin_bug() is called from a function like printk() which is using
> console lock, we should prevent the debug spinlock code from calling
> printk() any more in the context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c | 10 ++++++++++
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> index 0374a59..b339c5e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> @@ -67,11 +67,21 @@ static void spin_dump(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
> dump_stack();
> }
>
> +extern int is_console_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock);
> +
> static void spin_bug(raw_spinlock_t *lock, const char *msg)
> {
> if (!debug_locks_off())
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * If this function is called from a function like printk()
> + * which is trying console lock, we cannot call printk() any
> + * more. Or it's obviously deadlock!
Small spelling nit, the last sentence is not correct, pick one of these variants:
'It's an obvious deadlock.'
'It's obviously a deadlock.'
Thanks,
Ingo
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web