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:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:06:16 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 06/18] printk: Protect [un]register_console() with
 a mutex
Message-ID: <YzuVGJkthm17LlSf@google.com>
References: <20220924000454.3319186-7-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <YzMT27FVllY3u05k@alley>
 <87mtajkqvu.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <YzW9ExRVjv6PzvWR@alley>
 <Yza1wxVcH2bsITcs@alley>
 <87leq1uev5.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <YzcvvPargLYDHhgq@alley>
 <87zgeg7gnb.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <YzrzmHZYxp8iKEDT@alley>
 <87a66c66px.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87a66c66px.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On (22/10/03 21:41), John Ogness wrote:
> A semaphore has been needed because we are performing global locking for
> ambiguous reasons in all possible contexts. We should be using
> fine-grained lock and synchronization mechanisms that are appropriate
> for their used contexts to precisely lock/synchronize exactly what needs
> to be locked/synchronized.
> 
> Your first question is literally, "what is wrong with a BKL".
> 
> And the answer to that is: A BKL is preventing us from optimizing the
> kernel by decoupling unrelated activities.
> 
> > The above proposal suggests that it might be something like:
> >
> > register_console()
> > {
> > 	console_list_lock();
> >
> > 	if (!need_console())
> > 		goto out;
> >
> > 	if (!try_enable_console())
> > 		goto out;
> >
> > 	if (!(con->flags & CON_NOBLK))
> > 		console_lock()
> 
> Why are you taking the console_lock here? The console_list_lock needs to
> replace this responsibility. I realize the RFC and this v1 series does
> not do this. For v2, it will be clear.

So tty/VT code also needs to take list_lock? list_lock does not look
precisely relevant to vt, which has it's own "list" of "struct vc" to
maintain.