Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:46:13 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64_t
Message-ID: <X9Cq9SMaCy3lGhXJ@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20201201205341.3871-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20201201205341.3871-3-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <X8n9a2DWUFE/giyB@alley>
 <X8/jS9k/eMIL+Acw@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <875z5c9bhn.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20201209081623.GI2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20201209092204.GD1667627@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201209092204.GD1667627@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (20/12/09 18:22), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > 
> > Please put on your eye cancer gear and inspect the atomic implementation
> > of PA-RISC, Sparc32, feh, I forgot who else.
> > 
> > Those SMP capable architectures are gifted with just one XCHG like
> > atomic instruction :/ Anyway, as said in the other email, they also
> > don't have NMIs so it mostly works.

PeterZ, thanks for the pointers!


> Hmm, wow. OK, I definitely want to look further.
> 
> When some CONFIG_DEBUG_FOO_BAR code wants to pr_err from prb->atomic_op
> on those archs then we deadlock in printk once again?

E.g. arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c

	spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE];
	atomic_foo()
	{
		spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
		...
		spin_unlock_irqrestore(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags);
	}

So another potential re-entry path is

	atomic_foo()
	 spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
	  printk()
	   prb()
	    atomic_foo()
	     spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)

which can deadlock, in theory, if both atomics HASH to the same
key (same spin_lock).

I wonder what else am I missing.

	-ss