Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:27:14 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
       linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IRQ off latency of printk is very high
Message-ID: <20071101152714.GA2489@Krystal>
References: <4720F21F.9090404@am.sony.com> <20071025222804.GA13954@Krystal> <47211E2C.90301@am.sony.com> <20071025231237.GT19691@waste.org> <472129C3.6040405@am.sony.com> <20071029185445.GA7742@ucw.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071029185445.GA7742@ucw.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2536
Lines: 77

* Pavel Machek (pavel@ucw.cz) wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Hmm, I see this at the beginning of the post-BK era (2.6.12-rc2):
> > > 
> > > 	        spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> > > 		...
> > > 		spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> > > 		call_console_drivers(_con_start, _log_end);
> > > 		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, I need to do some more research.  This must be in
> > release_console_sem().  I was looking at vprintk, through
> > the ages.  At 2.6.16, it looked like this:
> > 
> >         spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> >         ...
> >               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> >               console_may_schedule = 0;
> >               release_console_sem();
> > 
> > but the irq restore has been moving around to different places
> > in that function over the last few years.  I suspect that in the
> > common case the irqsave in vprintk is the one that disables
> > ints.
> > 
> > It appears that formerly interrupts were enabled in vprintk but
> > re-disabled immediately upon entering release_console_sem().
> > As it is now, they're held during formatting, buffering,
> > and output, which seems excessive.
> > 
> > It seems draconian to drain the entire buffer with ints disabled.
> > Is it possible to break this up and send out smaller chunks
> > at a time?  Maybe by putting a chunk loop in release_console_sem()?
> 
> Well, I believe someone got
> 
> DDetetccctted ed 113223 HHzz CPUCPU
> 
> in his dmesg, and now we have this 'draconian' locking. How can we
> prevent mangled messages without it?
> 							Pavel


The main interest seems to be to protect from mixed printk output
between different CPUs in process context. I don't think it would be
that bad if interrupts come and output error messages in the middle of a
printk, isn't it ?

therefore, could we do something like :


if (!in_irq())
  spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
...
if (!in_irq())
  spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);

? (yes, this is a crazy idea)

Mathieu


> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/