Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 10:26:28 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v2
Message-ID: <20190506082628.wehkislebljxmk5d@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20190502141643.21080-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190506074553.21464-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190506081614.b7b22k4prodskbiy@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190506081614.b7b22k4prodskbiy@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 2019-05-06 10:16:14, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2019-05-06 09:45:53, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > console_trylock, called from within printk, can be called from pretty
> > much anywhere. Including try_to_wake_up. Note that this isn't common,
> > usually the box is in pretty bad shape at that point already. But it
> > really doesn't help when then lockdep jumps in and spams the logs,
> > potentially obscuring the real backtrace we're really interested in.
> > One case I've seen (slightly simplified backtrace):
> > 
> >  Call Trace:
> >   <IRQ>
> >   console_trylock+0xe/0x60
> >   vprintk_emit+0xf1/0x320
> >   printk+0x4d/0x69
> >   __warn_printk+0x46/0x90
> >   native_smp_send_reschedule+0x2f/0x40
> >   check_preempt_curr+0x81/0xa0
> >   ttwu_do_wakeup+0x14/0x220
> >   try_to_wake_up+0x218/0x5f0
> 
> try_to_wake_up() takes p->pi_lock. It could deadlock because it
> can get called recursively from printk_safe_up().
> 
> And there are more locks taken from try_to_wake_up(), for example,
> __task_rq_lock() taken from ttwu_remote().
> 
> IMHO, the most reliable solution would be do call the entire
> up_console_sem() from printk deferred context. We could assign
> few bytes for this context in the per-CPU printk_deferred
> variable.

Ah, I was too fast and did the same mistake. This won't help because
it would still call try_to_wake_up() recursively.

We need to call all printk's that can be called under locks
taken in try_to_wake_up() path in printk deferred context.
Unfortunately it is whack a mole approach.

Best Regards,
Petr