On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 23:21 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted text
> @@ -1003,7 +1005,11 @@ void release_console_sem(void)
>  	console_locked = 0;
>  	up(&console_sem);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> -	if (wake_klogd)
> +	/*
> +	 * If we try to wake up klogd while printing with the runqueue lock
> +	 * held, this will deadlock.
> +	 */
> +	if (wake_klogd && !runqueue_is_locked())
>  		wake_up_klogd();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_console_sem);

quoted text
> +/**
> + * runqueue_is_locked
> + *
> + * Returns true if the current cpu runqueue is locked.
> + * This interface allows printk to be called with the runqueue lock
> + * held and know whether or not it is OK to wake up the klogd.
> + */
> +int runqueue_is_locked(void)
> +{
> +	int cpu = get_cpu();
> +	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = spin_is_locked(&rq->lock);
> +	put_cpu();
> +	return ret;
> +}

Right, while this might appear to be sound, I hate to point out that we
only want to exclude it when current holds the rq->lock. This could lead
to spuriously missing klogd wakeups because other cpus hold our
rq->lock.

Now, is this klogd thing only relevant for dumping stuff into the log,
or also for writing stuff out to the serial line?

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