[PATCH next v1 2/3] printk: remove safe buffers

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2021-03-22 22:58:47, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-22, Petr Mladek <pmladek at suse.com> wrote:
> > On Mon 2021-03-22 12:16:15, John Ogness wrote:
> >> On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> >> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >> >>  	 * Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
> >> >>  	 * drivers that might have their own locks.
> >> >>  	 */
> >> >> -	if ((this_cpu_read(printk_context) & PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
> >> >> +	if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) &
> >> >> +	    (PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK |
> >> >> +	     PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK |
> >> >> +	     PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
> >> >

> >> But I suppose I could switch
> >> the 1 printk_nmi_direct_enter() user to printk_nmi_enter() so that
> >> PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK can be removed now. I would do this in a
> >> 4th patch of the series.
> >
> > Yes, please unify the PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT. One is enough.
> 
> Agreed. (But I'll go even further. See below.)
> 
> > I wonder if it would make sense to go even further at this stage.
> > What is possible?
> >
> > 1. We could get rid of printk_nmi_enter()/exit() and
> >    PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT completely already now. It is enough
> >    to check in_nmi() in printk_func().
> >
> 
> Agreed. in_nmi() within vprintk_emit() is enough to detect if the
> console code should be skipped:
> 
>     if (!in_sched && !in_nmi()) {
>         ...
>     }

Well, we also need to make sure that the irq work is scheduled to
call console later. We should keep this dicision in
printk_func(). I mean to replace the current

	if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) &
	    (PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK |
	     PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK |
	     PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)) {

with

	/*
	 * Avoid calling console drivers in recursive printk()
	 * and in NMI context.
	 */
	if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) || in_nmi() {

That said, I am not sure how this fits your further rework.
I do not want to complicate it too much.

I am just afraid that the discussion about console rework might
take some time. And this would remove some complexity before we
started the more complicated or controversial changes.


> > 2. I thought about unifying printk_safe_enter()/exit() and
> >    printk_enter()/exit(). They both count recursion with
> >    IRQs disabled, have similar name. But they are used
> >    different way.
> >
> >    But better might be to rename printk_safe_enter()/exit() to
> >    console_enter()/exit() or to printk_deferred_enter()/exit().
> >    It would make more clear what it does now. And it might help
> >    to better distinguish it from the new printk_enter()/exit().
> >
> >    I am not sure if it is worth it.
> 
> I am also not sure if it is worth the extra "noise" just to give the
> function a more appropriate name. The plan is to remove it completely
> soon anyway. My vote is to leave the name as it is.

OK, let's keep printk_safe() name. It was just an idea. I wrote it
primary to sort my thoughts.

Best Regards,
Petr