Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 14:09:25 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] printk for 5.19
Message-ID: <Yo9t9Vg/DpvMqCs7@alley>
References: <YouKQw72H7y9EJQK@alley>
 <CAHk-=wgC47n_7E6UtFx_agkJtLmWOXGsjdFjybBFYNA1AheQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pmk1tgmx.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87pmk1tgmx.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2022-05-26 00:08:46, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2022-05-25, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:21 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> >> There are situations when the kthreads are either not available or
> >> not reliable, for example, early boot, suspend, or panic. In these
> >> situations, printk() uses the legacy mode and tries to handle
> >> consoles immediately.
> >
> > Looking through the commits, I don't see how that "printk: wake up all
> > waiters" makes any sense at all.
> >
> > It *ALREADY* woke up all waiters as far as I can see.
> >
> > Doing a wake_up_interruptible() will stop waking things up only when
> > it hits a *exclusive* waiter, and as far as I can tell, there are no
> > exclusive waiters there.
> 
> You are correct. @log_wait never has exclusive waiters. I will post a
> patch to revert the change in question.

John, Yes, please do so.

> > But when I see something really core like printk() get confused and
> > mis-understand basic wait queue behavior, that makes me go "This is
> > WRONG".

Linus, thanks a lot for catching and explaining the problem.

Yeah, it is a shame. I have met code with exclusive waiters only once,
8 years ago and completely forgot about it. I was curious how it
worked with more log waiters but I put it into TODO list. The new
code looked safe and I was too focused on finding potential problems.

Best Regards,
Petr