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;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@puresoftware.com>,
        Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>, Andrij Abyzov <aabyzov@slb.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>,
        Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
        Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@huawei.com>,
        "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        Al Cooper <alcooperx@gmail.com>, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 10/10] serial: 8250: implement write_atomic
In-Reply-To: <931ebc1a-3cc9-677c-44c3-7cbd645eb4f4@kernel.org>
References: <20210803131301.5588-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> <20210803131301.5588-11-john.ogness@linutronix.de> <YQlNtr7TNAWtB8XF@smile.fi.intel.com> <931ebc1a-3cc9-677c-44c3-7cbd645eb4f4@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 05 Aug 2021 10:32:38 +0206
Message-ID: <87k0l0wb41.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-08-05, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 03. 08. 21, 16:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:19:01PM +0206, John Ogness wrote:
>>> Implement an NMI-safe write_atomic() console function in order to
>>> support synchronous console printing.
>>>
>>> Since interrupts need to be disabled during transmit, all usage of
>>> the IER register is wrapped with access functions that use the
>>> printk cpulock to synchronize register access while tracking the
>>> state of the interrupts. This is necessary because write_atomic()
>>> can be called from an NMI context that has preempted write_atomic().
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> +static inline void serial8250_set_IER(struct uart_8250_port *up,
>>> +				      unsigned char ier)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct uart_port *port = &up->port;
>>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>> +	bool is_console;
>> 
>>> +	is_console = uart_console(port);
>>> +
>>> +	if (is_console)
>>> +		console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags);
>>> +
>>> +	serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
>>> +
>>> +	if (is_console)
>>> +		console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags);
>> 
>> I would rewrite it as
>> 
>> 	if (uart_console()) {
>> 		console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags);
>> 		serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
>> 		console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags);
>> 	} else {
>> 		serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
>> 	}

Some locations have more than just 1 line of code in between
lock/unlock. I agree this looks better, but am unsure how much
copy/paste code is acceptable.

>> No additional variable, easier to get the algorithm on the first
>> glance, less error prone.
>
> Yes, the original is terrible.
>
> Another option:
>
> bool locked = console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags, uart_console());
> serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
> console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags, locked);
>
> Which makes console_atomic_cpu_lock to lock only if second parameter
> is true and return its value too.

I am not sure how common such semantics for lock/unlock functions
are. But since this pattern, using uart_console(), will most likely be a
common pattern for atomic consoles, I can see how this will be useful.

I will choose one of these 2 suggestions for v2. Thanks.

> BTW I actually don't know what console_atomic_cpu_lock does to think 
> about it more as I was not CCed, and neither lore sees the other patches:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mips/20210803131301.5588-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de/

Only the lkml mailing list saw the full series:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210803131301.5588-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de/

John Ogness