Re: [PATCH] pstore: change mutex locking to spin_locks

From: huang ying
Date: Fri Jul 22 2011 - 09:03:46 EST

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 08:33:22AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> On 07/22/2011 01:57 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> >>> Is it safe to call pstore_mkfile with IRQ disabled?
>> >>>
>> >>> pstore_mkfile -> d_alloc_name -> d_alloc -> kmem_cache_alloc(, GFP_KERNEL).
>> >>
>> >> Don't know. ÂBut would that mean we would have to put the pstore_mkfile
>> >> on a workqueue then or something similar?
>> >
>> > That might be a good idea anyway. ÂIn the "oops" case we'd like the file
>> > to appear in the pstore filesystem if the system stayed healthy despite
>> > the oops[1]. There isn't any reason why the pstore entry must appear instantly.
>> > Delaying the creation would avoid running into problems related to the
>> > oops.
>> For oops, it may be better to delay writing into something like
>> workqueue. ÂBut for panic, I think we should write the record to backend
>> (such as ERST) as soon as possible. ÂSo maybe it is better to write to
>> backend as soon as possible and delay writing to pstore filesystem.
> In the panic case do we care if the pstore fs is mounted (which leads us
> to run pstore_mkfile)?
> Actually it seems like most of the entry points into pstore_dumper would
> not require the fs to create a new file. ÂI think the exception is an
> oops.

Yes. I think so too.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at