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:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 14:22:19 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Lech Perczak <l.perczak@camlintechnologies.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Drobi=C5=84ski?= 
        <k.drobinski@camlintechnologies.com>,
        Pawel Lenkow <p.lenkow@camlintechnologies.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in v4.19.106 breaking waking up of readers of
 /proc/kmsg and /dev/kmsg
Message-ID: <20200301052219.GA83612@google.com>
References: <42d3ce5c-5ffe-8e17-32a3-5127a6c7c7d8@camlintechnologies.com>
 <e9358218-98c9-2866-8f40-5955d093dc1b@camlintechnologies.com>
 <20200228031306.GO122464@google.com>
 <20200228100416.6bwathdtopwat5wy@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200228105836.GA2913504@kroah.com>
 <20200228113214.kew4xi5tkbo7bpou@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200228130217.rj6qge2en26bdp7b@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200228205334.GF101220@mit.edu>
 <20200229033253.GA212847@google.com>
 <20200229184719.714dee74@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200229184719.714dee74@oasis.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (20/02/29 18:47), Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
> > > What do folks think?  
> > 
> > Well, my 5 cents, there is nothing that prevents "too-early"
> > printk_deferred() calls in the future. From that POV I'd probably
> > prefer to "forbid" printk_deffered() to touch per-CPU deferred
> > machinery until it's not "too early" anymore. Similar to what we
> > do in printk_safe::queue_flush_work().
> 
> I agree that printk_deferred() should handle being called too early.
> But the issue is with per_cpu variables correct? Not the irq_work?

Correct. printk_deferred() and printk_safe()/printk_nmi() irq_works
are per-CPU. We use "a special" flag in printk_safe()/printk_nmi() to
tell if it's too early to modify per-CPU irq_work or not.

I believe that we need to use that flag for all printk-safe/nmi
per-CPU data, including buffers, not only for irq_work. Just in
case if printk_safe or printk_nmi, somehow, are being called too
early.

> We could add a flag in init/main.c after setup_per_cpu_areas() and then
> just have printk_deferred() act like a normal printk(). At that point,
> there shouldn't be an issue in calling printk() directly, is there?

Sure, this will work. I believe we introduced a "work around" approach
in printk-safe because noone would ACK a global init/main.c flag for
printk(). If we can land a "per_cpu_areas_ready" flag (I've some doubts
here), then yes (!), let's use it and let's remove printk-safe workaround.

	-ss