Re: [PATCH] PM: hibernate: Do not get block device exclusively in test_resume mode

[Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>]

Hi Rafael,
On 2023-04-05 at 20:37:32 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 10:59 AM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > The system refused to do a test_resume because it found that the
> > swap device has already been taken by someone else. Specificly,
> > the swsusp_check()->blkdev_get_by_dev(FMODE_EXCL) is supposed to
> > do this check.
> >
> > Steps to reproduce:
> >  dd if=/dev/zero of=/swapfile bs=$(cat /proc/meminfo |
> >        awk '/MemTotal/ {print $2}') count=1024 conv=notrunc
> >  mkswap /swapfile
> >  swapon /swapfile
> >  swap-offset /swapfile
> >  echo 34816 > /sys/power/resume_offset
> >  echo test_resume > /sys/power/disk
> >  echo disk > /sys/power/state
> >
> >  PM: Using 3 thread(s) for compression
> >  PM: Compressing and saving image data (293150 pages)...
> >  PM: Image saving progress:   0%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  10%
> >  ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> >  ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> >  ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> >  ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> >  ata6: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> >  ata3: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> >  ata4: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  20%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  30%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  40%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  50%
> >  pcieport 0000:00:02.5: pciehp: Slot(0-5): No device found
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  60%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  70%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  80%
> >  PM: Image saving progress:  90%
> >  PM: Image saving done
> >  PM: hibernation: Wrote 1172600 kbytes in 2.70 seconds (434.29 MB/s)
> >  PM: S|
> >  PM: hibernation: Basic memory bitmaps freed
> >  PM: Image not found (code -16)
> >
> > This is because when using the swapfile as the hibernation storage,
> > the block device where the swapfile is located has already been mounted
> > by the OS distribution(usually been mounted as the rootfs). This is not
> > an issue for normal hibernation, because software_resume()->swsusp_check()
> > happens before the block device(rootfs) mount. But it is a problem for the
> > test_resume mode. Because when test_resume happens, the block device has
> > been mounted already.
> >
> > Thus remove the FMODE_EXCL for test_resume mode. This would not be a
> > problem because in test_resume stage, the processes have already been
> > frozen, and the race condition described in
> > Commit 39fbef4b0f77 ("PM: hibernate: Get block device exclusively in swsusp_check()")
> > is unlikely to happen.
> >
> > Fixes: 39fbef4b0f77 ("PM: hibernate: Get block device exclusively in swsusp_check()")
> > Reported-by: Yifan Li <yifan2.li@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/power/hibernate.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> >  kernel/power/power.h     |  2 +-
> >  kernel/power/swap.c      | 10 +++++++---
> >  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > index 793c55a2becb..f50456e72f0a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > @@ -683,22 +683,26 @@ static void power_down(void)
> >                 cpu_relax();
> >  }
> >
> > -static int load_image_and_restore(void)
> > +static int load_image_and_restore(bool safe)
> 
> It is not very clear why the argument is called "safe".
> 
> Either this needs to be explained in a comment, or I would just call
> it "exclusive" and rework the checks accordingly.
> 
OK, I can change it to "exclusive". Pavan proposed to add a global
variable snapshot_testing to indicate that the system is in test_resume mode,
and we can check this flag to decide whether to open the block device
exclusively or not. Then we don't have to add parameter for load_image_and_restore()
nor swsusp_check(). Could you please give advice whether this is applicable?
If yes I can change the code accordingly, otherwise I can change the "safe"
to "exclusive" and add some comments.

thanks,
Chenyu