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, 9 Sep 2019 00:18:09 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation
Message-ID: <20190908221809.GA3637@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190807222634.1723-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190904123531.GA2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190905130513.4fru6yvjx73pjx7p@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190905143118.GP2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190906090627.GX2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190906124211.2dionk2kzcslaotz@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190906140126.GY2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190906140126.GY2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:01:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 02:42:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:

> > 7. People would complain when continuous lines become less
> >    reliable. It might be most visible when mixing backtraces
> >    from all CPUs. Simple sorting by prefix will not make
> >    it readable. The historic way was to synchronize CPUs
> >    by a spin lock. But then the cpu_lock() could cause
> >    deadlock.
> 
> Why? I'm running with that thing on, I've never seen a deadlock ever
> because of it. In fact, i've gotten output that is plain impossible with
> the current junk.
> 
> The cpu-lock is inside the all-backtrace spinlock, not outside. And as I
> said yesterday, only the lockless console has any wait-loops while
> holding the cpu-lock. It _will_ make progress.

So I've been a huge flaming idiot.. so while I'm not particularly
sympathetic to NMIs that block, there are a number of really trivial
deadlocks possible -- and it is a minor miracle I've not actually hit
them (I suppose because printk() isn't really all that common).

The whole cpu-lock thing I had needs to go. But not having it makes
lockless console output unreadable and unsable garbage.

I've got some ideas on a replacement, but I need to further consider it.

:-/