Re: [BUG] Code reordering in swsusp breaks suspend on SMP systems

[Maxim <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 22 March 2007 01:14:05 Maxim wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:22:40 Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 18:40 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Starting with 2.6.21-rc1 suspend to ram and disk doesn't work anymore on my system.
> > > 
> > > I did a git-bisect and found that those commits break it:
> > > 
> > > e3c7db621bed4afb8e231cb005057f2feb5db557 - [PATCH] [PATCH] PM: Change code ordering in main.c
> > > ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5 - [PATCH] [PATCH] swsusp: Change code ordering in disk.c
> > > 259130526c267550bc365d3015917d90667732f1 - [PATCH] [PATCH] swsusp: Change code ordering in user.c
> > > 
> > > I already reported about it, but now i know the reason why suspend breaks.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that both cpu_up/cpu_down were allowed to sleep until now, 
> > > and it did work because those functions could be called only in process context
> > > (the one that writes to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/online) or  idle thread  that does smp_init()).
> > > 
> > > But now they are called _after_ all tasks were suspended, so if cpu_down tries for example to take a lock
> > > that is taken by different process, it can't since the different proccess is frozen and can't release the lock.
> > > 
> > > I tested this and all results are positive:
> > > 
> > > I disabled 2nd cpu by hand, and then suspend to ram was successfull.
> > > Suspend to disk went correctly, but it hang on resume, and I know why.
> > > It hang in old kernel trying to disable 2nd cpu that was enabled by it.
> > > 
> > > I was able using kdb to confirm that this is true because it was still possible to enter kdb, and see that
> > > idle thread (swapper) was active, and uswsusp was waiting on mutex inside workqueue_cpu_callback.
> > > 
> > > The solution for this problem seems to be ether complete audit of code that uses register_cpu_notifier,
> > > to ensure that it doesn't sleep. 
> > > Also documentation should be changed to note about it.
> > > 
> > > Or, it is also possible to revert this change.
> > 
> > Do you know exactly which mutex was being waited on and where it was
> > taken? If you can say that, it would be much more helpful.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Nigel
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 	It is workqueue_mutex
> 	and it is taken in kernel/workqueue.c:797
> 
> 	this is guilt of freezable work queues , and XFS uses it (and I use XFS)
> 
> 	Thanks to Rafael J. Wysocki for pointing it out to me.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Maxim Levitsky
> 

oops, Forgot to cc

Regards,
	Maxim Levitsky