[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <74b2262b-48e7-b2a5-7d20-dc7f590958d9@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:11:44 -0600
From: Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pseries/hotplug: Add more delay in pseries_cpu_die while
waiting for rtas-stop
On 1/9/19 12:08 AM, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> I did some testing during the holidays. Here are the observations:
>
> 1) With just your patch (without any additional debug patch), if I run
> DLPAR on /off operations on a system that has SMT=off, I am able to
> see a crash involving RTAS stack corruption within an hour's time.
>
> 2) With the debug patch (appended below) which has additional debug to
> capture the callers of stop-self, start-cpu, set-power-levels, the
> system is able to perform DLPAR on/off operations on a system with
> SMT=off for three days. And then, it crashed with the dead CPU showing
> a "Bad kernel stack pointer". From this log, I can clearly
> see that there were no concurrent calls to stop-self, start-cpu,
> set-power-levels. The only concurrent RTAS calls were the dying CPU
> calling "stop-self", and the CPU running the DLPAR operation calling
> "query-cpu-stopped-state". The crash signature is appended below as
> well.
>
> 3) Modifying your patch to remove the udelay and increase the loop
> count from 25 to 1000 doesn't improve the situation. We are still able
> to see the crash.
>
> 4) With my patch, even without any additional debug, I was able to
> observe the system run the tests successfully for over a week (I
> started the tests before the Christmas weekend, and forgot to turn it
> off!)
So does this mean that the problem is fixed with your patch?
>
> It appears that there is a narrow race window involving rtas-stop-self
> and rtas-query-cpu-stopped-state calls that can be observed with your
> patch. Adding any printk's seems to reduce the probability of hitting
> this race window. It might be worth the while to check with RTAS
> folks, if they suspect something here.
What would the RTAS folks be looking at here? The 'narrow race window'
is with respect to a patch that it sound like we should not be using.
Thanks.
Michael
--
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line 363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell: (512) 466-0650
mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists