Re: [PATCH RFC] sysrq: rcu-ify __handle_sysrq

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:53:52 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Echoing values into /proc/sysrq-trigger seems to be a popular way to
> get information out of the kernel. However, dumping information about
> thousands of processes, or hundreds of CPUs to serial console can
> result in IRQs being blocked for minutes, resulting in various kinds
> of cascade failures.
> 
> The most common failure is due to interrupts being blocked for a very
> long time. This can lead to things like failed IO requests, and other
> things the system cannot easily recover from.

I bet nobody wants that console output anyway.  You do the sysrq then
run dmesg or look in /var/log/messages to see what happened.  People
who are experiencing problems such as this should run `dmesg -n 1'
before writing to sysrq-trigger.

Maybe what we can do is to arrange for the sysrq-trigger output to not
go to the console at all.  Add /proc/sysrq-trigger-ng or add a sysrq
command to [un]silence the console or something.

> This problem is easily fixable by making __handle_sysrq use RCU
> instead of spin_lock_irqsave.
> 
> This leaves the warning that RCU grace periods have not elapsed for a
> long time, but the system will come back from that automatically.
> 
> It also leaves sysrq-from-irq-context when the sysrq keys are pressed,
> but that is probably desired since people want that to work in situations
> where the system is already hosed.
> 
> The callers of register_sysrq_key and unregister_sysrq_key appear to be
> capable of sleeping.

unregister_sysrq_key() is basically never used - a couple of scruffy
drivers during rmmod.  We hardly need any locking in there at all.  I
guess using simple RCU is better than just removing it though.

> --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> @@ -510,9 +510,8 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
>  	struct sysrq_key_op *op_p;
>  	int orig_log_level;
>  	int i;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	/*
>  	 * Raise the apparent loglevel to maximum so that the sysrq header
>  	 * is shown to provide the user with positive feedback.  We do not
> @@ -554,7 +553,7 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
>  		printk("\n");
>  		console_loglevel = orig_log_level;
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
>  void handle_sysrq(int key)
> @@ -1043,16 +1042,23 @@ static int __sysrq_swap_key_ops(int key, struct sysrq_key_op *insert_op_p,
>                                  struct sysrq_key_op *remove_op_p)
>  {
>  	int retval;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> +	spin_lock(&sysrq_key_table_lock);
>  	if (__sysrq_get_key_op(key) == remove_op_p) {
>  		__sysrq_put_key_op(key, insert_op_p);
>  		retval = 0;
>  	} else {
>  		retval = -1;
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> +	spin_unlock(&sysrq_key_table_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * A concurrent __handle_sysrq eitehr got the old op or the new op.

yuo cnat spel

> +	 * Wait for it to go away before returning, so the code for an old
> +	 * op is not freed (eg. on module unload) while it is in use.
> +	 */
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +
>  	return retval;
>  }

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/