From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B80C432C1 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F412089F for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XdVTQLgk" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 64F412089F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id EBCDC6B0005; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E6DF56B0006; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:28:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D352D6B0007; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:28:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0232.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.232]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EEC6B0005 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 44AF4612E for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:28:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75968079600.18.love47_4ba490595c448 X-HE-Tag: love47_4ba490595c448 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5422 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com (mail-pg1-f194.google.com [209.85.215.194]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h17so240560pgb.3 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dAEzx7fT/0S8T6OwYYfD593mWT+cjAFFU5hLQ2lomU0=; b=XdVTQLgkx65yGyZWW1UNLpT1ol9jqft5ELDACaQFZAMQZpDGySxY59Nwkl4n3vLvtA b6xYv3DHnS7ihrCzDsxdpj4xhEmPZds7qJnssR/COxSPfrK2N/gT5jv6ZWHCn7rCJ2mD JgaxEPEvIwWVhlUiwL0cWB4gwEGRt2T8cuFtziqUcOtCppi7vC6LXsfnNaDi/pNGFuqS CO0x8lsMHzGNsaWM+k3mCShf7OGWgoBf1a2rMRGrDGyc5pj4N9SMovAYICmOUEsdOsiS TDyDaXGSSkMIGft2lXhWF0y2ON1YS5AMyLykrx4pyDM+lgrikCGsgeLLu+SVFLHcSB7M epNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dAEzx7fT/0S8T6OwYYfD593mWT+cjAFFU5hLQ2lomU0=; b=qp1twPcZ3GVdexN5k0JqZPImZal9diXvAnxoUFd2RvFBugdWSj1Yoj+KVXpQhDNl9A ONdKQNSjMszhPd9caZ53N1Q+2FVoCRFUFfnDMhQMQalssvhbbKZ4FEE3FgzxptG2lAvF DT1kNFxShf/3nKsiaQ5oF8PHPW96FIoHoDaqkxqqS2ZL3mBsDwAZztves9n+A3z6fHuz tD+bUqtotdxL+prEOf3fn7BnF84QPE3HeNLsIRkBjcjYqOfuo8L2xRAXWv9MCYNX10TE Z+9PLVZE5HkfnhFslmnTSu9AKxk8xz9pz9M60SAUlm5whAz0cCNDrTcbSpGDOMoa2l+X tF7g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcElRlbv20zKPFioM0FOA0pOVEWvv2Ycd82P+uByYgZidp6ryp KkVwQ5OhMrMEHwB1CYqkzFQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhEWYZe65h6MvxMjQ45DCNMriaqT2Rx0Bc9L8bicYBJ0gNLFDXBbmJbGa+Xzo4GOFJ/4mZXw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1f23:: with SMTP id f35mr462440pgf.298.1569288518651; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([110.70.15.91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f188sm26664pfa.170.2019.09.23.18.28.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:28:34 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Petr Mladek Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Qian Cai , Catalin Marinas , Arnd Bergmann , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Dan Williams , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Theodore Ts'o , Waiman Long , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: printk() + memory offline deadlock (WAS Re: page_alloc.shuffle=1 + CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y = arm64 hang) Message-ID: <20190924012834.GC3864@jagdpanzerIV> References: <1567717680.5576.104.camel@lca.pw> <1568128954.5576.129.camel@lca.pw> <20190911011008.GA4420@jagdpanzerIV> <1568289941.5576.140.camel@lca.pw> <20190916104239.124fc2e5@gandalf.local.home> <1568817579.5576.172.camel@lca.pw> <20190918155059.GA158834@tigerII.localdomain> <1568823006.5576.178.camel@lca.pw> <20190923102100.GA1171@jagdpanzerIV> <20190923125851.cykw55jpqwlerjrz@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190923125851.cykw55jpqwlerjrz@pathway.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On (09/23/19 14:58), Petr Mladek wrote: > > If I understand it correctly then this is the re-appearing problem. > The only systematic solution with the current approach is to > take port->lock in printk_safe/printk_deferred context. It probably is. We have a number of reverse paths. TTY invokes MM under port->lock, UART invokes TTY under port->lock, MM invokes UART under zone->lock, UART invokes sched under port->lock, shced invokes UART, UART invokes UART under port->lock (!), and so on. > But this is a massive change that almost nobody wants. Instead, > we want the changes that were discussed on Plumbers. > > Now, the question is what to do with existing kernels. There were > several lockdep reports. And I am a bit lost. Did anyone seen > real deadlocks or just the lockdep reports? I think so. Qian Cai mentioned "a hang" in one of his reports (was it unseeded random()?). I'll send a formal patch maybe, since there were no objections. > To be clear. I would feel more comfortable when there are no > deadlocks. But I also do not want to invest too much time > into old kernels. All these problems were there for ages. > We could finally see them because lockdep was enabled in printk() > thanks to printk_safe. True. Everyone was so much happier when printk() used to do lockdep_off(); call_console_drivers(); lockdep_on(); Now we can have lockdep and RCU checks enabled, yet somehow printk_safe is still "a terrible thing" :) -ss