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:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:37:10 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de, david@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()
Message-ID: <20191010083710.GF18412@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20191007144937.GO2381@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20191008074357.f33f6pbs4cw5majk@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20191008082752.GB6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <aefe7f75-b0ec-9e99-a77e-87324edb24e0@de.ibm.com>
 <1570550917.5576.303.camel@lca.pw>
 <1157b3ae-006e-5b8e-71f0-883918992ecc@linux.ibm.com>
 <20191009142623.GE6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20191010051201.GA78180@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20191010074049.GD18412@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20191010081629.GA120986@jagdpanzerIV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191010081629.GA120986@jagdpanzerIV>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 10-10-19 17:16:29, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/10/19 09:40), Michal Hocko wrote:
> [..]
> > > > Considering that console.write is called from essentially arbitrary code
> > > > path IIUC then all the locks used in this path should be pretty much
> > > > tail locks or console internal ones without external dependencies.
> > > 
> > > That's a good expectation, but I guess it's not always the case.
> > > 
> > > One example might be NET console - net subsystem locks, net device
> > > drivers locks, maybe even some MM locks (skb allocations?).
> > 
> > I am not familiar with the netconsole code TBH. If there is absolutely
> > no way around that then we might have to bite a bullet and consider some
> > of MM locks a land of no printk.
> 
> So this is what netconsole does (before we pass on udp to net device
> driver code, which *may be* can do more allocations, I don't know):
> 
> write_msg()
>  netpoll_send_udp()
>   find_skb()
>    alloc_skb(len, GFP_ATOMIC)
>     kmem_cache_alloc_node()
> 
> You are the right person to ask this question to - how many MM
> locks are involved when we do GFP_ATOMIC kmem_cache allocation?
> Is there anything to be concerned about?

At least zone->lock might involved. Maybe even more.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs