[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b0e528f-e597-9598-3ff6-b9e08ddb8165@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:21:13 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dzickus@...hat.com,
brendan.jackman@....com, malat@...ian.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sramana@...eaurora.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: Fix rollback during error-out in
takedown_cpu()
On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>> ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
>>> if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
>>> - cpuhp_reset_state(st, prev_state);
>>> + /*
>>> + * As st->last is not set, cpuhp_reset_state() increments
>>> + * st->state, which results in CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS being
>>> + * skipped during rollback. So, don't use it here.
>>> + */
>>> + st->rollback = true;
>>> + st->target = prev_state;
>>> + st->bringup = !st->bringup;
>> No, this is just papering over the actual problem.
>>
>> The state inconsistency happens in take_cpu_down() when it returns with a
>> failure from __cpu_disable() because that returns with state = TEARDOWN_CPU
>> and st->state is then incremented in undo_cpu_down().
>>
>> That's the real issue and we need to analyze the whole cpu_down rollback
>> logic first.
> And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARDOWN state
> makes it simple to observe. It's universaly broken, when the first teardown
> callback fails because, st->state is only decremented _AFTER_ the callback
> returns success, but undo_cpu_down() increments unconditionally.
>
> Patch below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
As per my understanding, there are 2 problems here; one is fixed with
your patch, and other is cpuhp_reset_state() is used during rollback
from non-AP to AP state, which seem to result in 2 increments of
st->state (one increment done by cpuhp_reset_state() and another by
cpu_thread_fun()) .
> ----
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -916,7 +916,8 @@ static int cpuhp_down_callbacks(unsigned
> ret = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, st->state, false, NULL, NULL);
> if (ret) {
> st->target = prev_state;
> - undo_cpu_down(cpu, st);
> + if (st->state < prev_state)
> + undo_cpu_down(cpu, st);
> break;
> }
> }
> @@ -969,7 +970,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
> * to do the further cleanups.
> */
> ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
> - if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
> + if (ret && st->state == CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
> cpuhp_reset_state(st, prev_state);
> __cpuhp_kick_ap(st);
> }
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists