LKML Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
@ 2023-09-29 11:32 John Ogness
  2023-09-29 13:43 ` Petr Mladek
  2023-10-02 13:05 ` Petr Mladek
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Ogness @ 2023-09-29 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: Petr Mladek
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

Commit 9e70a5e109a4 ("printk: Add per-console suspended state")
removed console lock usage during resume and replaced it with
the clearly defined console_list_lock and srcu mechanisms.

However, the console lock usage had an important side-effect
of flushing the consoles. After its removal, consoles were no
longer flushed before checking their progress.

Add the console_lock/console_unlock dance to the beginning
of __pr_flush() to actually flush the consoles before checking
their progress. Also add comments to clarify this additional
usage of the console lock.

Finally, in case pr_flush() needs to poll-wait (for example,
because there has been a handover to another CPU), reduce the
polling interval from 100ms to 1ms. In the bug report it was
mentioned that 100ms is unnecessarily long.

Reported-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@intel.com>
Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217955
Fixes: 9e70a5e109a4 ("printk: Add per-console suspended state")
Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/printk/printk.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 7e0b4dd02398..cf7841fc6eef 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -3740,12 +3740,18 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
 
 	seq = prb_next_seq(prb);
 
+	/* Flush the consoles so that records up to @seq are printed. */
+	console_lock();
+	console_unlock();
+
 	for (;;) {
 		diff = 0;
 
 		/*
 		 * Hold the console_lock to guarantee safe access to
-		 * console->seq.
+		 * console->seq. Releasing console_lock flushes more
+		 * records in case @seq is still not printed on all
+		 * usable consoles.
 		 */
 		console_lock();
 
@@ -3775,16 +3781,11 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
 		if (diff == 0 || remaining == 0)
 			break;
 
-		if (remaining < 0) {
-			/* no timeout limit */
-			msleep(100);
-		} else if (remaining < 100) {
-			msleep(remaining);
-			remaining = 0;
-		} else {
-			msleep(100);
-			remaining -= 100;
-		}
+		msleep(1);
+
+		/* If @remaining < 0, there is no timeout limit. */
+		if (remaining > 0)
+			remaining--;
 
 		last_diff = diff;
 	}

base-commit: 4952801fc6adb5b50b8ec2bcc5aeef92fcce8730
-- 
2.39.2


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
  2023-09-29 11:32 [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress John Ogness
@ 2023-09-29 13:43 ` Petr Mladek
  2023-10-02 13:05 ` Petr Mladek
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2023-09-29 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: John Ogness
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

On Fri 2023-09-29 13:38:33, John Ogness wrote:
> Commit 9e70a5e109a4 ("printk: Add per-console suspended state")
> removed console lock usage during resume and replaced it with
> the clearly defined console_list_lock and srcu mechanisms.
> 
> However, the console lock usage had an important side-effect
> of flushing the consoles. After its removal, consoles were no
> longer flushed before checking their progress.
> 
> Add the console_lock/console_unlock dance to the beginning
> of __pr_flush() to actually flush the consoles before checking
> their progress. Also add comments to clarify this additional
> usage of the console lock.
> 
> Finally, in case pr_flush() needs to poll-wait (for example,
> because there has been a handover to another CPU), reduce the
> polling interval from 100ms to 1ms. In the bug report it was
> mentioned that 100ms is unnecessarily long.
> 
> Reported-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@intel.com>
> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217955
> Fixes: 9e70a5e109a4 ("printk: Add per-console suspended state")
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>

Looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

I am going to wait a bit for eventual feedback and push it to
linux-next the following week.

Best Regards,
Petr

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
  2023-09-29 11:32 [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress John Ogness
  2023-09-29 13:43 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2023-10-02 13:05 ` Petr Mladek
  2023-10-04 10:25   ` John Ogness
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2023-10-02 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: John Ogness
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

On Fri 2023-09-29 13:38:33, John Ogness wrote:
> Finally, in case pr_flush() needs to poll-wait (for example,
> because there has been a handover to another CPU), reduce the
> polling interval from 100ms to 1ms. In the bug report it was
> mentioned that 100ms is unnecessarily long.
> 
> Reported-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@intel.com>
> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217955
> Fixes: 9e70a5e109a4 ("printk: Add per-console suspended state")
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 7e0b4dd02398..cf7841fc6eef 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -3775,16 +3781,11 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
>  		if (diff == 0 || remaining == 0)
>  			break;
>  
> -		if (remaining < 0) {
> -			/* no timeout limit */
> -			msleep(100);
> -		} else if (remaining < 100) {
> -			msleep(remaining);
> -			remaining = 0;
> -		} else {
> -			msleep(100);
> -			remaining -= 100;
> -		}
> +		msleep(1);

I was about to push this patch and ran checkpatch.pl. It warned about

WARNING: msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
#73: FILE: kernel/printk/printk.c:3782:
+               msleep(1);

And indeed, Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst says that msleep()
might sleep longer that expected for <20ms delays. I guess that
it is somehow related to jiffies, HZ, and load on the system.

I think that we need to count jiffies here. Something like:

diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index db81b68d7f14..6ea500d95fd9 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -3723,7 +3723,8 @@ late_initcall(printk_late_init);
 /* If @con is specified, only wait for that console. Otherwise wait for all. */
 static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progress)
 {
-	int remaining = timeout_ms;
+	unsigned long timeout_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms);
+	unsigned_long timeout_end = jiffies + timeout_jiffies;
 	struct console *c;
 	u64 last_diff = 0;
 	u64 printk_seq;
@@ -3772,24 +3773,19 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
 		console_srcu_read_unlock(cookie);
 
 		if (diff != last_diff && reset_on_progress)
-			remaining = timeout_ms;
+			timeout_end = jiffies + timeout_jiffies;
 
 		console_unlock();
 
 		/* Note: @diff is 0 if there are no usable consoles. */
-		if (diff == 0 || remaining == 0)
+		if (diff == 0)
 			break;
 
-		if (remaining < 0) {
-			/* no timeout limit */
-			msleep(100);
-		} else if (remaining < 100) {
-			msleep(remaining);
-			remaining = 0;
-		} else {
-			msleep(100);
-			remaining -= 100;
-		}
+		/* Negative timeout means an infinite wait. */
+		if (timeout_ms >= 0 && time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout_end))
+			break;
+
+		msleep(2000 / HZ);
 
 		last_diff = diff;
 	}

Note that I used 2000 / HZ to make sure that it will be >= 1.

And we should do this in a separate patch. It seems that sleeping
is a bigger magic than I expected.

Best Regards,
Petr

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
  2023-10-02 13:05 ` Petr Mladek
@ 2023-10-04 10:25   ` John Ogness
  2023-10-04 12:39     ` Petr Mladek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Ogness @ 2023-10-04 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: Petr Mladek
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

On 2023-10-02, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> I was about to push this patch and ran checkpatch.pl. It warned about
>
> WARNING: msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
> #73: FILE: kernel/printk/printk.c:3782:
> +               msleep(1);
>
> And indeed, Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst says that msleep()
> might sleep longer that expected for <20ms delays. I guess that
> it is somehow related to jiffies, HZ, and load on the system.
>
> I think that we need to count jiffies here.

Agreed. The @timeout_ms parameter should be respected.

> Something like:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index db81b68d7f14..6ea500d95fd9 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -3723,7 +3723,8 @@ late_initcall(printk_late_init);
>  /* If @con is specified, only wait for that console. Otherwise wait for all. */
>  static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progress)
>  {
> -	int remaining = timeout_ms;
> +	unsigned long timeout_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms);
> +	unsigned_long timeout_end = jiffies + timeout_jiffies;
>  	struct console *c;
>  	u64 last_diff = 0;
>  	u64 printk_seq;
> @@ -3772,24 +3773,19 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
>  		console_srcu_read_unlock(cookie);
>  
>  		if (diff != last_diff && reset_on_progress)
> -			remaining = timeout_ms;
> +			timeout_end = jiffies + timeout_jiffies;
>  
>  		console_unlock();
>  
>  		/* Note: @diff is 0 if there are no usable consoles. */
> -		if (diff == 0 || remaining == 0)
> +		if (diff == 0)
>  			break;
>  
> -		if (remaining < 0) {
> -			/* no timeout limit */
> -			msleep(100);
> -		} else if (remaining < 100) {
> -			msleep(remaining);
> -			remaining = 0;
> -		} else {
> -			msleep(100);
> -			remaining -= 100;
> -		}
> +		/* Negative timeout means an infinite wait. */
> +		if (timeout_ms >= 0 && time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout_end))
> +			break;
> +
> +		msleep(2000 / HZ);

Is there really any advantage to this? I would just do msleep(1) and let
msleep round up. Everything else (tracking via jiffies) looks fine to me.

>  		last_diff = diff;
>  	}
>
> And we should do this in a separate patch. It seems that sleeping
> is a bigger magic than I expected.

Agreed.

John

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
  2023-10-04 10:25   ` John Ogness
@ 2023-10-04 12:39     ` Petr Mladek
  2023-10-04 12:47       ` John Ogness
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2023-10-04 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: John Ogness
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

On Wed 2023-10-04 12:31:07, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2023-10-02, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> > I was about to push this patch and ran checkpatch.pl. It warned about
> >
> > WARNING: msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
> > #73: FILE: kernel/printk/printk.c:3782:
> > +               msleep(1);
> >
> > And indeed, Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst says that msleep()
> > might sleep longer that expected for <20ms delays. I guess that
> > it is somehow related to jiffies, HZ, and load on the system.
> >
> > I think that we need to count jiffies here.
> 
> Agreed. The @timeout_ms parameter should be respected.
> 
> > Something like:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index db81b68d7f14..6ea500d95fd9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -3772,24 +3773,19 @@ static bool __pr_flush(struct console *con, int timeout_ms, bool reset_on_progre
> >  		console_srcu_read_unlock(cookie);
> >  
> >  		if (diff != last_diff && reset_on_progress)
> > -			remaining = timeout_ms;
> > +			timeout_end = jiffies + timeout_jiffies;
> >  
> >  		console_unlock();
> >  
> >  		/* Note: @diff is 0 if there are no usable consoles. */
> > -		if (diff == 0 || remaining == 0)
> > +		if (diff == 0)
> >  			break;
> >  
> > -		if (remaining < 0) {
> > -			/* no timeout limit */
> > -			msleep(100);
> > -		} else if (remaining < 100) {
> > -			msleep(remaining);
> > -			remaining = 0;
> > -		} else {
> > -			msleep(100);
> > -			remaining -= 100;
> > -		}
> > +		/* Negative timeout means an infinite wait. */
> > +		if (timeout_ms >= 0 && time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout_end))
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		msleep(2000 / HZ);
> 
> Is there really any advantage to this? I would just do msleep(1) and let
> msleep round up. Everything else (tracking via jiffies) looks fine to me.

It was attempt to synchronize it with a scheduler tick. I saw it somewhere ;-)
But you are right. Let's keep it simple and use msleep(1).


> >  		last_diff = diff;
> >  	}
> >
> > And we should do this in a separate patch. It seems that sleeping
> > is a bigger magic than I expected.
> 
> Agreed.

Are you going to prepare them or should I?

Best Regards,
Petr

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress
  2023-10-04 12:39     ` Petr Mladek
@ 2023-10-04 12:47       ` John Ogness
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Ogness @ 2023-10-04 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: Petr Mladek
  Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel,
	Todd Brandt

On 2023-10-04, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> Are you going to prepare them or should I?

Really it was your version that we are taking. I suppose you should post
them and I can review them.

Also, the Closes tag probably should just be on the lock/unlock patch.

John

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-04 12:47 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-29 11:32 [PATCH printk] printk: flush consoles before checking progress John Ogness
2023-09-29 13:43 ` Petr Mladek
2023-10-02 13:05 ` Petr Mladek
2023-10-04 10:25   ` John Ogness
2023-10-04 12:39     ` Petr Mladek
2023-10-04 12:47       ` John Ogness

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).