From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: disable cpu hotplug until the rebooting cpu is stable
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 15:06:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tudq35a8.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFgQCTvbsh5UhefhDgOu8ZdUKww6FQXw-Hxnz5mC4vs0C+WP1w@mail.gmail.com>
On 26/01/22 10:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:29 AM Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/01/22 11:39, Pingfan Liu wrote:
>> > The following identical code piece appears in both
>> > migrate_to_reboot_cpu() and smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus():
>> >
>> > if (!cpu_online(primary_cpu))
>> > primary_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
>> >
>> > Although the kexec-reboot task can get through a cpu_down() on its cpu,
>> > this code looks a little confusing.
>> >
>> > Make things straight forward by keep cpu hotplug disabled until
>> > smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus() holds cpu_add_remove_lock. By this way, the
>> > rebooting cpu can keep unchanged.
>> >
>>
>> So is this supposed to be a refactor with no change in behaviour? AFAICT it
>> actually does change things (and isn't necessarily clearer).
>>
> Yes, as you have seen, it does change behavior. Before this patch,
> there is a breakage:
> migrate_to_reboot_cpu();
> cpu_hotplug_enable();
> ----------> technical, here can
> comes a cpu_down(this_cpu)
> machine_shutdown();
>
> And this patch squeezes out this breakage.
>
Ok, that's worth pointing out in the changelog.
>> > diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> > index 68480f731192..db4fa6b174e3 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> > @@ -1168,14 +1168,12 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
>> > kexec_in_progress = true;
>> > kernel_restart_prepare("kexec reboot");
>> > migrate_to_reboot_cpu();
>> > -
>> > /*
>> > - * migrate_to_reboot_cpu() disables CPU hotplug assuming that
>> > - * no further code needs to use CPU hotplug (which is true in
>> > - * the reboot case). However, the kexec path depends on using
>> > - * CPU hotplug again; so re-enable it here.
>> > + * migrate_to_reboot_cpu() disables CPU hotplug. If an arch
>> > + * relies on the cpu teardown to achieve reboot, it needs to
>> > + * re-enable CPU hotplug there.
>> > */
>> > - cpu_hotplug_enable();
>> > +
>>
>> Not all archs map machine_shutdown() to smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(), other
>> archs will now be missing a cpu_hotplug_enable() prior to a kexec
>> machine_shutdown(). That said, AFAICT none of those archs rely on the
>> hotplug machinery in machine_shutdown(), so it might be OK, but that's not
>> obvious at all.
>>
> At the first glance, it may be not obvious, but tracing down
> cpu_hotplug_enable() to the variable cpu_hotplug_disabled, you can
> find out the limited involved functions are all related to
> cpu_up/cpu_down.
>
> IOW, if no code path connects with the interface of cpu_up/cpu_down,
> then kexec-reboot will not be affected.
>
That's my point, this only works if the other archs truly do not rely on
hotplug for machine_shutdown(), which seems to be the case but it wouldn't
hurt for you to double-check that and explicitely call it out in the
changelog.
> And after this patch, it is more clear how to handle the following cases:
> arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c:94: smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(reboot_cpu);
> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c:88: smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(reboot_cpu);
> arch/ia64/kernel/process.c:578: smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(reboot_cpu);
>
FWIW riscv is also concerned.
> Thanks,
> Pingfan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-26 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-25 3:39 Pingfan Liu
2022-01-25 16:29 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-26 2:45 ` Pingfan Liu
2022-01-26 15:06 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2022-01-27 8:44 ` Pingfan Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87tudq35a8.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kernelfans@gmail.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=libaokun1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
--cc=yuehaibing@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome