Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751220AbVK1C2v (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:28:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750860AbVK1C2v (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:28:51 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:42152 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750792AbVK1C2u (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:28:50 -0500 To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , "Raj, Ashok" , Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386/x86_64: Don't IPI to offline cpus on shutdown References: <20051127135833.GH20775@brahms.suse.de> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Zwane Mwaikambo's message of "Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:45:47 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5001 Lines: 149 Zwane Mwaikambo writes: > On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Andi Kleen writes: >> >> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 02:05:45AM -0800, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: >> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5203 >> >> >> >> There is a small race during SMP shutdown between the processor issuing >> >> the shutdown and the other processors clearing themselves off the >> >> cpu_online_map as they do this without using the normal cpu offline >> >> synchronisation. To avoid this we should wait for all the other processors >> >> to clear their corresponding bits and then proceed. This way we can safely >> >> make the cpu_online test in smp_send_reschedule, it's safe during normal >> >> runtime as smp_send_reschedule is called with a lock held / preemption >> >> disabled. >> > >> > Looking at the backtrace in the bug - how can sys_reboot call do_exit??? >> > I would say the problem is in whatever causes that. It shouldn't >> > do that. sys_reboot shouldn't schedule, it's that simple. >> > Your patch is just papering over that real bug. >> >> sys_reboot in the case of halt (after everything else is done) >> has directly called do_exit for years. >> >> There are some very subtle interactions there. The one >> I always remember (having found it the hard way) is that >> interrupts must be left on so ctrl-alt-del still works. >> >> This do_exit may be something similar, although I can't >> think of how it could be useful. > > I wondered the same thing, perhaps i am papering over the bug, what > exactly is do_exit doing there? So I just looked at a couple of kernels I have lying around. the do_exit has been in halt since 1.2.? In 1.0 the halt case was not even implemented. So I think not coping with the do_exit is a problem, as every other architecture and every other kernel has been able to. To handle ctrl-alt-del after a halt (or any other action) being able to schedule sounds important. As Andi Kleen indicated the problem with do_exit is that it schedules. I strongly disagree that simply scheduling after halting is a bug. So why are we calling smp_send_stop from machine_halt? We don't. Looking more closely at the bug report the problem here is that halt -p is called which triggers not a halt but an attempt to power off. machine_power_off calls machine_shutdown which calls smp_send_stop. If pm_power_off is set we should never make it out machine_power_off to the call of do_exit. So pm_power_off must not be set in this case. When pm_power_off is not set we expect machine_power_off to devolve into machine_halt. So how do we fix this? Playing too much with smp_send_stop is dangerous because it must also be safe to be called from panic. It looks like the obviously correct fix is to only call machine_shutdown when pm_power_off is defined. Doing that will make Andi's assumption about not scheduling true and generally simplify what must be supported. This turns machine_power_off into a noop like machine_halt when pm_power_off is not defined. If the expected behavior is that sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF) becomes sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT) if pm_power_off is NULL this is not quite a comprehensive fix as we pass a different parameter to the reboot notifier and we set system_state to a different value before calling device_shutdown(). Unfortunately any fix more comprehensive I can think of is not obviously correct. The core problem is that there is no architecture independent way to detect if machine_power will become a noop, without calling it. Eric diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/i386/kernel/reboot.c index 350ea66..2a8cb44 100644 --- a/arch/i386/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/reboot.c @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include #include @@ -347,10 +348,10 @@ void machine_halt(void) void machine_power_off(void) { - machine_shutdown(); - - if (pm_power_off) + if (pm_power_off) { + machine_shutdown(); pm_power_off(); + } } diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/reboot.c index 75235ed..57117b8 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/reboot.c @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include #include @@ -154,10 +155,11 @@ void machine_halt(void) void machine_power_off(void) { - if (!reboot_force) { - machine_shutdown(); - } - if (pm_power_off) + if (pm_power_off) { + if (!reboot_force) { + machine_shutdown(); + } pm_power_off(); + } } - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/