Re: [PATCH] arm64: smp: smp_send_stop() and crash_smp_send_stop() should try non-NMI first

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

Hi Doug,

I'm doing some inbox Spring cleaning!

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 05:02:56PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> When testing hard lockup handling on my sc7180-trogdor-lazor device
> with pseudo-NMI enabled, with serial console enabled and with kgdb
> disabled, I found that the stack crawls printed to the serial console
> ended up as a jumbled mess. After rebooting, the pstore-based console
> looked fine though. Also, enabling kgdb to trap the panic made the
> console look fine and avoided the mess.
>
> After a bit of tracking down, I came to the conclusion that this was
> what was happening:
> 1. The panic path was stopping all other CPUs with
>    panic_other_cpus_shutdown().
> 2. At least one of those other CPUs was in the middle of printing to
>    the serial console and holding the console port's lock, which is
>    grabbed with "irqsave". ...but since we were stopping with an NMI
>    we didn't care about the "irqsave" and interrupted anyway.
> 3. Since we stopped the CPU while it was holding the lock it would
>    never release it.
> 4. All future calls to output to the console would end up failing to
>    get the lock in qcom_geni_serial_console_write(). This isn't
>    _totally_ unexpected at panic time but it's a code path that's not
>    well tested, hard to get right, and apparently doesn't work
>    terribly well on the Qualcomm geni serial driver.
> 
> It would probably be a reasonable idea to try to make the Qualcomm
> geni serial driver work better, but also it's nice not to get into
> this situation in the first place.
> 
> Taking a page from what x86 appears to do in native_stop_other_cpus(),
> let's do this:
> 1. First, we'll try to stop other CPUs with a normal IPI and wait a
>    second. This gives them a chance to leave critical sections.
> 2. If CPUs fail to stop then we'll retry with an NMI, but give a much
>    lower timeout since there's no good reason for a CPU not to react
>    quickly to a NMI.
> 
> This works well and avoids the corrupted console and (presumably)
> could help avoid other similar issues.
> 
> In order to do this, we need to do a little re-organization of our
> IPIs since we don't have any more free IDs. We'll do what was
> suggested in previous conversations and combine "stop" and "crash
> stop". That frees up an IPI so now we can have a "stop" and "stop
> NMI".
> 
> In order to do this we also need a slight change in the way we keep
> track of which CPUs still need to be stopped. We need to know
> specifically which CPUs haven't stopped yet when we fall back to NMI
> but in the "crash stop" case the "cpu_online_mask" isn't updated as
> CPUs go down. This is why that code path had an atomic of the number
> of CPUs left. We'll solve this by making the cpumask into a
> global. This has a potential memory implication--with NR_CPUs = 4096
> this is 4096/8 = 512 bytes of globals. On the upside in that same case
> we take 512 bytes off the stack which could potentially have made the
> stop code less reliable. It can be noted that the NMI backtrace code
> (lib/nmi_backtrace.c) uses the same approach and that use also
> confirms that updating the mask is safe from NMI.

Updating the global masks without any synchronisation feels broken though:

> @@ -1085,77 +1080,75 @@ void smp_send_stop(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned long timeout;
>  
> -	if (num_other_online_cpus()) {
> -		cpumask_t mask;
> +	/*
> +	 * If this cpu is the only one alive at this point in time, online or
> +	 * not, there are no stop messages to be sent around, so just back out.
> +	 */
> +	if (num_other_online_cpus() == 0)
> +		goto skip_ipi;
>  
> -		cpumask_copy(&mask, cpu_online_mask);
> -		cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> +	cpumask_copy(to_cpumask(stop_mask), cpu_online_mask);
> +	cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), to_cpumask(stop_mask));

I don't see what prevents multiple CPUs getting in here concurrently and
tripping over the masks. x86 seems to avoid that with an atomic
'stopping_cpu' variable in native_stop_other_cpus(). Do we need something
similar?

Apart from that, I'm fine with the gist of the patch.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel