Re: [PATCH] watchdog: fix for lockup detector breakage on resume

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 04/27/2012 11:40 PM, Sameer Nanda 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.
> 
> 
>  include/linux/sched.h  |    4 ++++
>  kernel/power/suspend.c |    3 +++
>  kernel/watchdog.c      |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 81a173c..118cc38 100644
> --- 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);
> +


I have a couple of comments about this:

1. Strictly speaking, we should be using the _FROZEN variants here (since the
tasks are still frozen).

Like, cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_DEAD_FROZEN, cpu);
and   cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN, cpu);

Right now, since the same action is taken for either variant (ie., with or without
_FROZEN), it really doesn't matter. But still, good to be on the safer side no?

2. Why are we skipping the CPU_UP_PREPARE_FROZEN callback?

3. How about hibernation? We don't hit this problem there?

> +	return;
> +}
> +
>  void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
>  {
>  	void *cpu = (void *)(long)smp_processor_id();



Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/