On Sat 25-03-17 09:04:42, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/21/17 13:44), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > so we probably can
> >
> >
> > 1) move pr_info() out of zone->lock in __offline_isolated_pages().
> > meh...
> >
> >
> > 2) switch to printk_deferred() in __offline_isolated_pages().
> > meh.. there might a bunch of other printks done from under zone->lock.
> >
> >
> > 3) move add_timer() out of sclp_con_lock console in sclp_console_write().
> > well, there can be other consoles that do something similar.
> >
> >
> > 4) ... something smart.
>
>
> Sebastian, does this change make lockdep happy?
>
> it removes console drivers from the __offline_isolated_pages(). not the
> best solution I can think of, but the simplest one.
>
> ---
>
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index f749b7ff7c50..eb61e6ab5f4f 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -7705,7 +7705,7 @@ __offline_isolated_pages(unsigned long start_pfn,
> unsigned long end_pfn)
> BUG_ON(!PageBuddy(page));
> order = page_order(page);
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> - pr_info("remove from free list %lx %d %lx\n",
> + printk_deferred(KERN_INFO "remove from free list %lx %d %lx\n",
> pfn, 1 << order, end_pfn);
> #endif
> list_del(&page->lru);
I believe this is not a proper fix. Although this code is ugly and maybe
it doesn't really need zone->lock because that should be the page
allocator internal thing the problem is that printk shouldn't impose
such a subtle dependency on locks. Why does the timer needs to allocate
at all?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
