Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:06:53 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Guanghui Feng <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     pmladek@suse.com, senozhatsky@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org, anton@enomsg.org,
        ccross@android.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
        yaohongbo@linux.alibaba.com, zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com,
        zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: fix softlockup/rcu stall warning without setting
 CONFIG_PREEMPTION
Message-ID: <YgnHTTn6OFZzcD8C@google.com>
References: <1644672462-20793-1-git-send-email-guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1644672462-20793-1-git-send-email-guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (22/02/12 21:27), Guanghui Feng wrote:
>     console_unlock+0x220/0x420
>     vprintk_emit+0x17c/0x1ac
>     vprintk_default+0x3c/0x44
>     vprintk+0x38/0x70
>     printk+0x64/0x88
>     dump_task.part.0+0xc4/0xe0
>     dump_task+0x70/0x74
>     dump_tasks+0x78/0x90
>     dump_global_header+0xcc/0xe8
>     oom_kill_process+0x258/0x274
>     out_of_memory.part.0+0xb0/0x33c
>     out_of_memory+0x4c/0xa0
>     __alloc_pages_may_oom+0x11c/0x1a0
>     __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x4c0/0x75c
>     __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2b4/0x310
>     alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0x140
>     get_zeroed_page+0x20/0x50
>     __pud_alloc+0x40/0x190
>     copy_pud_range+0x264/0x280
>     copy_page_range+0xe8/0x204
>     dup_mmap+0x334/0x434
>     dup_mm+0x64/0x11c
>     copy_process+0x5e0/0x11a0
>     kernel_clone+0x94/0x364
>     __do_sys_clone+0x54/0x80
>     __arm64_sys_clone+0x24/0x30
>     el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x210
>     do_el0_svc+0x74/0x90
>     el0_svc+0x24/0x60
>     el0_sync_handler+0xa8/0xb0
>     el0_sync+0x140/0x180

[..]

> @@ -2716,7 +2716,11 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>  		if (handover)
>  			return;
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> +		if (do_cond_resched || need_resched())
> +#else
>  		if (do_cond_resched)
> +#endif
>  			cond_resched();

console_unlock() can be called from atomic context, it should not schedule
when it cannot do so. That's what console_may_schedule indicates.