From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] Make SMP secondary CPU up more resilient to failure.
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:58:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101218095820.GI9937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikJFdxbXjvWUMmEXoAG4xR8G9jq30ox90Bo4SWe@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 05:09:48PM -0600, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> It seems twd_calibrate_rate is the culprit (although in our case,
> since the clock is the same to both CPUs, there is no point in
> calibrating).
> We've seen this only when the device was under stress test load.
Right, I can reproduce it here on Versatile Express. With some debugging
printk's added, what's going on is revealed. This is what a normal cpu
up looks like:
Booting CPU3
Writng pen_release: 4294967295 -> 3
CPU3: Booted secondary processor
CPU3: Unknown IPI message 0x1
CPU3: calibrating delay
Switched to NOHz mode on CPU #3
CPU3: calibrating done
CPU3: now online
CPU3: online mask = 0000000f
However, when things go bad:
CPU3: Booted secondary processor
CPU3: calibrating delay
Booting CPU3
Switched to NOHz mode on CPU #3
Writng pen_release: 4294967295 -> 3
CPU3: Unknown IPI message 0x1
CPU3: calibrating done
CPU3: now online
CPU3: online mask = 0000000f
CPU3: processor failed to boot: -38
online mask = 0000000f
Notice that CPU3 booted before the requesting processor requested it to
boot - pen_release was -1 when CPU3 exited its hotplug lowpower function.
However, for CPU3 to get out of that, it must have seen pen_release = 3.
What I think is going on here is that the write to set pen_release back
to -1 is being cached. When CPU3 dies, although we call flush_cache_all(),
this doesn't touch the L2x0 controller, so the update never makes it to
memory. Then CPU3 disables its caches, and its access to pen_release
bypasses both all caches, resulting in the value in physical memory being
seen - which was the value written during the previous plug/unplug
iteration.
Reading the pen_release value in various places in CPU3's startup path
(which changes the MOESI cache conditions) prevents this 'speculative
starting' effect, as does flushing the pen_release cache line back to
memory after we set pen_release to -1 in platform_secondary_startup.
So, I can fix the underlying bug causing early CPU start in the existing
CPU hotplug implementations by ensuring that pen_release is always visibly
written.
We don't add code to patch around behaviour we don't immediately
understand - we try to understand what is going on, and fix the real
underlying problem.
So, the question now is: where is your underlying bug. There's certainly
a few holes in your code which I've pointed out - I suggest fixing those
and re-testing, and if the problem persists, try looking at the order in
which the kernel messages appear to get a better clue what's going on.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-18 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-15 23:45 [RFC] Make SMP secondary CPU up more resilient to failure Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-16 11:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-16 23:09 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-16 23:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-17 20:52 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-17 23:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-17 23:45 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-18 0:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-18 0:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-18 7:17 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-18 12:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-18 12:10 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-18 20:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-21 21:53 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-24 17:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-13 10:19 ` Andrei Warkentin
2011-01-13 11:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-13 22:03 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-17 0:11 ` murali at embeddedwireless.com
2010-12-18 9:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2010-12-18 11:54 ` Andrei Warkentin
2010-12-18 12:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=20101218095820.GI9937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).