From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Keerthy <a0393675@ti.com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, edubezval@gmail.com, nm@ti.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
joel@jms.id.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
dyoung@redhat.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly_poweroff
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:29:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5698F420.2010500@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160115101459.GB23349@gmail.com>
On 01/15/2016 12:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> If kernel_power_off() is called then the system should power off. No ifs and
>>> whens.
>>
>> Even if it doesn't the watchdog should kill it.
>>
>> That is broken on some platforms on the watchdog side as the
>> watchdog shuts down during our power off callbacks - because the system
>> firmware is too stupid to reset the watchdog as it powers back up (so
>> keeps rebooting).
>>
>> If you watchdog and firmware function properly you shouldn't even have to
>> care if you crash during the kernel power off.
>
> That's a good point as well - if the system is 'stuck' for some notion of stuck,
> then watchdog drivers can help.
>
Seems ARM doesn't have endless loop implemented in machine_power_off() - so,
not too much chances for Watchdog to fire.
void machine_power_off(void)
{
local_irq_disable();
smp_send_stop();
if (pm_power_off)
pm_power_off();
--- endless loop ?
--- or restart ?
}
[and even if it will be there - 20-30sec is usual timeout for Watchdog and this
enough time to burn the system in case of thermal emergency poweroff :(]
> Here it's unclear whether user-space even called the sys_reboot() system call.
>
That's true - original log [1] has
Nov 30 11:19:22 [ 5.942769] thermal thermal_zone3: critical temperature reached(108 C),shutting down
[...]
Nov 30 11:19:24 [ 7.387900] ahci 4a140000.sata: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led clo only pmp pio slum part ccc apst
Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Switching to runlevel: 0
Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Sending processes the TERM signal
and there are no
[ 220.004522] reboot: Power down
Also, It's not the first time this part of code is discussed (thermal emergency poweroff) [2],
so the good question, as for me, is it really required and safe to use orderly_poweroff() in
case of thermal emergency poweroff ([3] as example)?
In general, this kind of use case can be simulated using SysRq on any arch
- [3.290034] Freeing unused kernel memory: 492K (c0a67000 - c0ae2000)
INIT: version 2.88 booting
Starting udev
^^ The issue most probably might happens when system in the process of loading modules
So, once modules loading process is started - fire Sysrq "poweroff(o)"
[1] http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/14326688/
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/577
[3] http://review.omapzoom.org/#/c/34898/
--
regards,
-grygorii
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-15 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-13 12:33 [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly_poweroff Keerthy
2016-01-14 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-14 9:18 ` Keerthy
2016-01-14 10:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-14 10:42 ` Keerthy
2016-01-14 11:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-14 13:25 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-01-15 10:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-15 13:29 ` Grygorii Strashko [this message]
2016-01-15 14:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-19 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-19 10:32 ` Keerthy
2016-01-14 14:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-15 10:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-15 11:05 ` 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=5698F420.2010500@ti.com \
--to=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=a0393675@ti.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=j-keerthy@ti.com \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).