[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200121174751.5opyyjwxfnwdgcev@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:47:52 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Eiichi Tsukata <devel@...ukata.com>,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] smp: Create a new function to shutdown nonboot
cpus
On 01/21/20 17:03, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:27:41AM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > +void smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(unsigned int primary_cpu)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> > +
> > + if (!cpu_online(primary_cpu)) {
> > + pr_info("Attempting to shutdodwn nonboot cpus while boot cpu is offline!\n");
> > + cpu_online(primary_cpu);
Eh, that should be cpu_up(primary_cpu)!
Which I have to say I'm not if is the right thing to do.
migrate_to_reboot_cpu() picks the first online cpu if reboot_cpu (assumed 0) is
offline
migrate_to_reboot_cpu():
225 /* Make certain the cpu I'm about to reboot on is online */
226 if (!cpu_online(cpu))
227 cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> > + if (cpu == primary_cpu)
> > + continue;
> > + if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > + cpu_down(cpu);
> > + }
>
> How does this avoid racing with userspace attempting to restart CPUs
> that have already been taken down by this function?
This is meant to be called from machine_shutdown() only.
But you've got a point.
The previous logic that used disable_nonboot_cpus(), which in turn called
freeze_secondary_cpus() didn't hold hotplug lock. So I assumed the higher level
logic of machine_shutdown() ensures that hotplug lock is held to synchronize
with potential other hotplug operations.
But I can see now that it doesn't.
With this series that migrates users to use device_{online,offline}, holding
the lock_device_hotplug() should protect against such races.
Worth noting that this an existing problem in the code and not something
I introduced, of course it makes sense to fix it properly as part of this
series.
I'm not sure how the other archs deal with this TBH.
Thanks for having a look!
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists