Re: [PATCH] x86/spinlocks: Avoid a deadlock when someone unlock a zapped ticked spinlock

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:18:09AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> There are few situations when we reinitialize (zap) ticket spinlocks. It
> typically happens when the system is going down after an error and we
> want to avoid deadlock in some important services. For example,
> zap_locks() in printk.c and ioapic_zap_locks().

So there's a few problems here. On x86 the code you patch is dead code,
x86 no longer uses ticket locks. Other archs might still.

And I entirely detest adding instructions to any lock path, be it the
utmost fast path or not, for something that will _never_ happen (on a
healthy system).

I would still very much recommend getting rid of the need for
zap_locks() in the first place.

What I did back when is punt on the whole printk buffer madness and dump
things to early_printk() without any locking.

I think that as long as the printk buffer has locks you have to accept
to loose some data when really bad stuff goes down.
--
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/