Re: [PATCH] watchdog: fix for lockup detector breakage on resume
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Fri Apr 27 2012 - 17:28:30 EST
On Friday, April 27, 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:10:40 -0700
> Sameer Nanda <snanda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On the suspend/resume path the boot CPU does not go though an
> > offline->online transition. This breaks the NMI detector
> > post-resume since it depends on PMU state that is lost when
> > the system gets suspended.
> >
> > Fix this by forcing a CPU offline->online transition for the
> > lockup detector on the boot CPU during resume.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sameer Nanda <snanda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > To provide more context, we enable NMI watchdog on
> > Chrome OS. We have seen several reports of systems freezing
> > up completely which indicated that the NMI watchdog was not
> > firing for some reason.
> >
> > Debugging further, we found a simple way of repro'ing system
> > freezes -- issuing the command 'tasket 1 sh -c "echo nmilockup > /proc/breakme"'
> > after the system has been suspended/resumed one or more times.
> >
> > With this patch in place, the system freeze result in panics,
> > as expected. These panics provide a nice stack trace for us
> > to debug the actual issue causing the freeze.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -317,6 +317,7 @@ extern int proc_dowatchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> > size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos);
> > extern unsigned int softlockup_panic;
> > void lockup_detector_init(void);
> > +void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void);
> > #else
> > static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> > {
> > @@ -330,6 +331,9 @@ static inline void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
> > static inline void lockup_detector_init(void)
> > {
> > }
> > +static inline void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/suspend.c b/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > index 396d262..0d262a8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > @@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ static int suspend_enter(suspend_state_t state, bool *wakeup)
> > arch_suspend_enable_irqs();
> > BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
> >
> > + /* Kick the lockup detector */
> > + lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume();
> > +
> > Enable_cpus:
> > enable_nonboot_cpus();
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > index df30ee0..dd2ac93 100644
> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > @@ -585,6 +585,22 @@ static struct notifier_block __cpuinitdata cpu_nfb = {
> > .notifier_call = cpu_callback
> > };
> >
> > +void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void)
> > +{
> > + void *cpu = (void *)(long)smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * On the suspend/resume path the boot CPU does not go though the
> > + * offline->online transition. This breaks the NMI detector post
> > + * resume. Force an offline->online transition for the boot CPU on
> > + * resume.
> > + */
> > + cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_DEAD, cpu);
> > + cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_ONLINE, cpu);
> > +
> > + return;
> > +}
>
> I have issues with the comment ;) It describes some old bug which isn't
> there any more and which nobody cares about. A better comment would
> simply describe the function in the usual fashion. Something like
> this:
>
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c~nmi-watchdog-fix-for-lockup-detector-breakage-on-resume-fix
> +++ a/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -597,20 +597,17 @@ static struct notifier_block __cpuinitda
> .notifier_call = cpu_callback
> };
>
> +/*
> + * On entry to suspend we force an offline->online transition on the boot CPU so
> + * that PMU state is available to that CPU when it comes back online after
> + * resume. This information is required for restarting the NMI watchdog.
> + */
> void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void)
> {
> void *cpu = (void *)(long)smp_processor_id();
>
> - /*
> - * On the suspend/resume path the boot CPU does not go though the
> - * offline->online transition. This breaks the NMI detector post
> - * resume. Force an offline->online transition for the boot CPU on
> - * resume.
> - */
> cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_DEAD, cpu);
> cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_ONLINE, cpu);
> -
> - return;
> }
>
> void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
> _
>
>
> But I'm not sure how accurate it is. Is it true that the PMU data was
> required for starting the NMI hardware?
>
>
> Also, this is all dead code if CONFIG_SUSPEND=n, so how about
FWIW, looks good to me.
Thanks,
Rafael
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h~nmi-watchdog-fix-for-lockup-detector-breakage-on-resume-fix-fix
> +++ a/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -317,7 +317,6 @@ extern int proc_dowatchdog_thresh(struct
> size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos);
> extern unsigned int softlockup_panic;
> void lockup_detector_init(void);
> -void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void);
> #else
> static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> {
> @@ -331,6 +330,11 @@ static inline void touch_all_softlockup_
> static inline void lockup_detector_init(void)
> {
> }
> +#endif
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR) && defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)
> +void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void);
> +#else
> static inline void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void)
> {
> }
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c~nmi-watchdog-fix-for-lockup-detector-breakage-on-resume-fix-fix
> +++ a/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -597,6 +597,7 @@ static struct notifier_block __cpuinitda
> .notifier_call = cpu_callback
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> /*
> * On entry to suspend we force an offline->online transition on the boot CPU so
> * that PMU state is available to that CPU when it comes back online after
> @@ -609,6 +610,7 @@ void lockup_detector_bootcpu_resume(void
> cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_DEAD, cpu);
> cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_ONLINE, cpu);
> }
> +#endif
>
> void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
> {
> _
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/