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=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 C67B1C432C0 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9E720674 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:13:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6A9E720674 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C521A6B028D; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BDBC36B028E; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:13:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id ACA826B028F; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:13:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0131.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.131]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934E56B028D for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 54D6052CB for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:13:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76177151316.14.beam24_3cba29ca76f11 X-HE-Tag: beam24_3cba29ca76f11 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3510 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf32.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:13:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290CBB2F16; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:13:34 +0100 From: Petr Mladek To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Qian Cai , Steven Rostedt , Michal Hocko , Eric Dumazet , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure Message-ID: <20191120161334.p63723g4jyk6k7p3@pathway.suse.cz> References:<20190904074312.GA25744@jagdpanzerIV> <1567599263.5576.72.camel@lca.pw> <20190904144850.GA8296@tigerII.localdomain> <1567629737.5576.87.camel@lca.pw> <20190905113208.GA521@jagdpanzerIV> <1573751570.5937.122.camel@lca.pw> <20191118152738.az364dczadskgimc@pathway.suse.cz> <20191119004119.GC208047@google.com> <20191119094134.6hzbjc7l5ite6bpg@pathway.suse.cz> <20191120013005.GA3191@tigerII.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To:<20191120013005.GA3191@tigerII.localdomain> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0) 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 Wed 2019-11-20 10:30:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (19/11/19 10:41), Petr Mladek wrote: > [..] > > > > I do not like this. As a result, normal printk() will always deadlock > > > > in the scheduler code, including WARN() calls. The chance of the > > > > deadlock is small now. It happens only when there is another > > > > process waiting for console_sem. > > > > > > Why would it *always* deadlock? If this is the case, why we don't *always* > > > deadlock doing the very same wake_up_process() from console_unlock()? > > > > I speak about _normal_ printk() and not about printk_deferred(). > > > > wake_up_process() is called in console_unlock() only when > > sem->wait_list is not empty, see up() in kernel/locking/semaphore.c. > > printk() itself uses console_trylock() and does not wait. > > > I believe that this is the rason why printk_sched() was added > > so late in 2012. > > Right. I also think scheduler people do pretty nice work avoiding printk > calls under ->rq lock. > > What I tried to say - it's really not that hard to have a non-empty > console_sem ->wait_list, any "wrong" printk() call from scheduler > will deadlock us, because we have something to wake_up(). I am sorry but I do not take this as an argument that it would be acceptable to replace irq_work_queue() with wake_up_interruptible(). It is the first time that I hear about problem caused by the irq_work(). But we deal with deadlocks caused by wake_up() for years. It would be like replacing a lightly dripping tap with a heavily dripping one. I see reports with WARN() from scheduler code from time to time. I would get reports about silent death instead. RT guys are going to make printk() fully lockless. It would be really great achievement. irq_work is lockless. While wake_up() is not. There must be a better way how to break the infinite loop caused by the irq_work. Best Regards, Petr