From: Keerthy <a0393675@ti.com>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, toshi.kani@hp.com,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com,
grygorii.strashko@ti.com, mingo@kernel.org,
josh@joshtriplett.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, edubezval@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:15:20 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AAC430.3070107@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160128132447.6b8bec2c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Hi Alan,
On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:54 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:36:27 +0530
> Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> The series introduces a new function emergency_poweroff which shuts
>> down the system after a configurable period of time. emergency_poweroff
>> is appropriate in case of thermal shutdown scenario.
>
> That depends upon the system.
>
> If your hardware has its own built in thermal reset protection then it
> will merely make things worse by causing unneeded crashes.
>
> If your device doesn't have protection then you have bigger problems
> because a kernel crash or spin in interrupt space could easily mean that
> the thermal thermals but doesn't ever run any delayed work. On those that
> have a watchdog as well it should be using the hardware watchdog for
> protection not relying upon schedule_delayed_work to get work done.
>
> So IMHO this should get a resounding NAK as it stands. For most systems
> it's a backward change, for most of those that need more protection it
> doesn't look the right answer.
>
> In particular if you need to be sure the box goes off *right now* you
> don't want to schedule work because there are so many ways that it might
> never execute the work when the box is failing.
Scheduling work was done to give a configurable delay before powering
off. I get your point that it might never get scheduled when things go
wrong.
>
> Do your devices actually *really* need this, are you saying that someone
> who roots the device can disable this code and physically destroy the
> product ? If they do then I'd much rather see thermal_core call
> thermal_poweroff(), and define that on a platform basis - so for x86 it
> would be orderly_poweroff(), for your platform it might well be a
> function that right that instant bangs the registers to force power off,
> devices with watchdogs might write the watchdog with a 5 second timer and
> then try and do an orderly_poweroff and so forth.
Thanks for the feedback. I apologize for Ccing the wrong list. I removed
it from the thread.
Regards,
Keerthy
>
> Alan
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-29 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 13:06 [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function Keerthy
2016-01-28 13:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] reboot: Introduce emergency poweroff function Keerthy
2016-01-28 13:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] thermal: Use emergency_poweroff instead of orderly_poweroff for shutdown scenario Keerthy
2016-01-28 13:24 ` [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function One Thousand Gnomes
2016-01-29 1:45 ` Keerthy [this message]
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=56AAC430.3070107@ti.com \
--to=a0393675@ti.com \
--cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=j-keerthy@ti.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
/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