From: Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linux-pm <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: Linux panics when suspend cannot offline the secondary cores
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:50:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <575EBA40.4000803@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2922940.3xeChLaYeK@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 13/06/2016 15:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2016 02:06:14 PM Mason wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2016 23:37, Mason wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2016 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 10, 2016 05:41:32 PM Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm playing with S3 Suspend-to-RAM, and I noticed that Linux is really
>>>>> unhappy when the suspend framework fails to offline secondary cores.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this expected/by design, or could it fail more gracefully?
>>>>> (It could also be something missing in my platform's code.)
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a CPU offline bug to me which is more general than just
>>>> system suspend.
>>>
>>> You may be right, I will try just off-lining cpu1.
>>> Suspend may be a red herring.
>>>
>>> By the way, I know my implementation of tango_cpu_die
>>> is incorrect, I was testing the failure mode.
>>
>> Hello Rafael,
>>
>> Suspend was indeed a red herring. Manually requesting cpu1 off-lining
>> also makes Linux panic when cpu_die() unexpectedly returns.
>>
>> The subject should perhaps have been:
>>
>> Linux panics when secondary core off-lining fails
>>
>> Could it be made to fail more gracefully?
>> Or is this borkage inherent to the failed operation?
>> Or is it a bug in my platform code?
>> (A bug other than tango_cpu_die() failing to kill the core.)
>
> Well, smp_ops.cpu_die() is not expected to return AFAICS, so that may be
> the reason why it fails for you the way it does.
I am aware that smp_ops.cpu_die() is not expected to return.
(I was wondering if the framework could handle it gracefully.)
The actual implementation for cpu_die() asks the firmware to off-line
the current core. If the operation fails, for whatever reason, firmware
is not supposed to return control to Linux?
Is panic the only safe thing to do in Linux:
(If yes, then why doesn't the framework panic immediately?)
static void tango_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
ask_firmware_to_offline(cpu);
/* if we return here, something went wrong */
panic("firmware could not offline");
}
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-13 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-10 15:41 Linux panics when suspend cannot offline the secondary cores Mason
2016-06-10 21:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-10 21:37 ` Mason
2016-06-13 12:06 ` Mason
2016-06-13 13:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-13 13:50 ` Mason [this message]
2016-06-13 20:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-13 21:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-06-14 12:42 ` Mason
2016-06-15 11:48 ` Rebooting Cortex A9 MPCore (was: Linux panics when suspend cannot offline the secondary cores) Mason
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=575EBA40.4000803@free.fr \
--to=slash.tmp@free.fr \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sf84@laposte.net \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).