On Wed 23-04-14 13:56:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:54:55 +0100 Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
> > console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
> > calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it immediately
> > unlocks lockbuf_lock. So lockbuf_lock isn't needed for that branch.
> > When down_trylock() succeeds, the rest of console_trylock() is OK
> > without lockbuf_lock (it is called without it from other places), and
> > the only remaining thing in console_trylock_for_printk() is
> > can_use_console() call. For that call console_sem is enough (it
> > iterates all consoles and checks CON_ANYTIME flag).
> >
> > So we drop logbuf_lock before entering console_trylock_for_printk()
> > which simplifies the code.
> >
>
> I suppose we should document have_callable_console()'s locking
> requirements, and I don't think that "early in boot" part is true?
>
> ---
> a/kernel/printk/printk.c~printk-release-lockbuf_lock-before-calling-console_trylock_for_printk-fix
> +++ a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1377,7 +1377,9 @@ static void zap_locks(void)
> sema_init(&console_sem, 1);
> }
>
> -/* Check if we have any console registered that can be called early in boot.
> */
> +/*
> + * Check if we have any console registered. Requires console_sem.
So "early in boot" wasn't really exact but what you did isn't right
either. What I'd put there is:
/*
* Check if we have any console that is capable of printing while cpu is
* booting or shutting down. Requires console_sem.
*/
Maybe the function name could be changed to reflect better what it does but
I don't have any clever idea...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
