Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27143-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:48:44 +0200 (EET)
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, 
    Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
    Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
    Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, 
    John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, 
    Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
    linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1 2/2] serial/8250: Avoid getting lock in RT
 atomic context
In-Reply-To: <20240116073701.2356171-3-leobras@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <75a39f0a-8f79-eacf-4a35-5de512a3cbed@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240116073701.2356171-1-leobras@redhat.com> <20240116073701.2356171-3-leobras@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Leonardo Bras wrote:

> With PREEMPT_RT enabled, a spin_lock_irqsave() becomes a possibly sleeping
> spin_lock(), without preempt_disable() or irq_disable().
> 
> This allows a task T1 to get preempted or interrupted while holding the
> port->lock. If the preempting task T2 need the lock, spin_lock() code
> will schedule T1 back until it finishes using the lock, and then go back to
> T2.
> 
> There is an issue if a T1 holding port->lock is interrupted by an
> IRQ, and this IRQ handler needs to get port->lock for writting (printk):
> spin_lock() code will try to reschedule the interrupt handler, which is in
> atomic context, causing a BUG() for trying to reschedule/sleep in atomic
> context.

I thought that the printk side was supposed to be become aware when it's 
not safe to write to serial side so the printing can be deferred... Has 
that plan changed?

-- 
 i.

> So for the case (PREEMPT_RT && in_atomic()) try to get the lock, and if it
> fails proceed anyway, just like it's done in oops_in_progress case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> index 8ca061d3bbb92..8480832846319 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> @@ -3397,7 +3397,7 @@ void serial8250_console_write(struct uart_8250_port *up, const char *s,
>  
>  	touch_nmi_watchdog();
>  
> -	if (oops_in_progress)
> +	if (oops_in_progress || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && in_atomic())
>  		locked = uart_port_trylock_irqsave(port, &flags);
>  	else
>  		uart_port_lock_irqsave(port, &flags);
>