Re: [PATCH 1/7] Add die_spin_lock_{irqsave,irqrestore}

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +static arch_spinlock_t die_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> > +static int die_owner = -1;
> > +static unsigned int die_nest_count;
> > +
> > +unsigned long __die_spin_lock_irqsave(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	/* racy, but better than risking deadlock. */
> > +	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> > +
> > +	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +	if (!arch_spin_trylock(&die_lock)) {
> > +		if (cpu != die_owner)
> > +			arch_spin_lock(&die_lock);
> 
> So why not trylock and time out here after a few seconds, 
> instead of indefinitely supressing some potentially vital 
> output due to some other CPU crashing/locking with the lock 
> held?

[...]

> If we fix the deadlock potential, and get a true global 
> ordering of various oopses/warnings as they triggered (or 
> at least timestamping them), [...]

If we had a global 'trouble counter' we could use that to 
refine the spin-looping timeout: instead of using a pure 
timeout of a few seconds, we could say 'a timeout of a few 
seconds while the counter does not increase'.

I.e. only override the locking/ordering if the owner CPU 
does not seem to be able to make progress with printing the 
oops/warning.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/