Thiago Jung Bauermann's on April 11, 2019 9:08 am:
>
> Hello,
>
> Ping?
>
> --
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
>
>
> Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauer...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> When testing DLPAR CPU add/remove on a system under stress,
>> pseries_cpu_die() doesn't wait long enough for a CPU to die:
>>
>> [ 446.983944] cpu 148 (hwid 148) Ready to die...
>> [ 446.984062] cpu 149 (hwid 149) Ready to die...
>> [ 446.993518] cpu 150 (hwid 150) Ready to die...
>> [ 446.993543] Querying DEAD? cpu 150 (150) shows 2
>> [ 446.994098] cpu 151 (hwid 151) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.133726] cpu 136 (hwid 136) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403532] cpu 137 (hwid 137) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403772] cpu 138 (hwid 138) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403839] cpu 139 (hwid 139) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403887] cpu 140 (hwid 140) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403937] cpu 141 (hwid 141) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.403979] cpu 142 (hwid 142) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.404038] cpu 143 (hwid 143) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.513546] cpu 128 (hwid 128) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.693533] cpu 129 (hwid 129) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.693999] cpu 130 (hwid 130) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.703530] cpu 131 (hwid 131) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.704087] Querying DEAD? cpu 132 (132) shows 2
>> [ 447.704102] cpu 132 (hwid 132) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.713534] cpu 133 (hwid 133) Ready to die...
>> [ 447.714064] Querying DEAD? cpu 134 (134) shows 2
>>
>> This is a race between one CPU stopping and another one calling
>> pseries_cpu_die() to wait for it to stop. That function does a short busy
>> loop calling RTAS query-cpu-stopped-state on the stopping CPU to verify
>> that it is stopped, but I think there's a lot for the stopping CPU to do
>> which may take longer than this loop allows.
>>
>> As can be seen in the dmesg right before or after the "Querying DEAD?"
>> messages, if pseries_cpu_die() waited a little longer it would have seen
>> the CPU in the stopped state.
>>
>> What I think is going on is that CPU 134 was inactive at the time it was
>> unplugged. In that case, dlpar_offline_cpu() calls H_PROD on that CPU and
>> immediately calls pseries_cpu_die(). Meanwhile, the prodded CPU activates
>> and start the process of stopping itself. The busy loop is not long enough
>> to allow for the CPU to wake up and complete the stopping process.
>>
>> This can be a problem because if the busy loop finishes too early, then the
>> kernel may offline another CPU before the previous one finished dying,
>> which would lead to two concurrent calls to rtas-stop-self, which is
>> prohibited by the PAPR.
>>
>> We can make the race a lot more even if we only start querying if the CPU
>> is stopped when the stopping CPU is close to call rtas_stop_self(). Since
>> pseries_mach_cpu_die() sets the CPU current state to offline almost
>> immediately before calling rtas_stop_self(), we use that as a signal that
>> it is either already stopped or very close to that point, and we can start
>> the busy loop.
>>
>> As suggested by Michael Ellerman, this patch also changes the busy loop to
>> wait for a fixed amount of wall time. Based on the measurements that
>> Gautham did on a POWER9 system, in successful cases of
>> smp_query_cpu_stopped(cpu) returning affirmative, the maximum time spent
>> inside the loop was was 10 ms. This patch loops for 20 ms just be sure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauer...@linux.ibm.com>
>> Analyzed-by: Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> I have seen this problem since v4.8. Should this patch go to stable as
>> well?
>>
>> Changes since v2:
>> - Increaded busy loop to 200 iterations so that it can last up to 20 ms
>> (suggested by Gautham).
>> - Changed commit message to include Gautham's remarks.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> index 97feb6e79f1a..ac6dc35ab829 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> @@ -214,13 +214,22 @@ static void pseries_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
>> msleep(1);
>> }
>> } else if (get_preferred_offline_state(cpu) == CPU_STATE_OFFLINE) {
>> + /*
>> + * If the current state is not offline yet, it means that the
>> + * dying CPU (which is either in pseries_mach_cpu_die() or in
>> + * the process of getting there) didn't have a chance yet to
>> + * call rtas_stop_self() and therefore it's too early to query
>> + * if the CPU is stopped.
>> + */
>> + spin_event_timeout(get_cpu_current_state(cpu) ==
>> CPU_STATE_OFFLINE,
>> + 100000, 100);
If the CPU state does not go to offline here, you should give up and
return online, right? Otherwise I think query-cpu-stopped-state can
get confused by CPUs in idle and you get a false positive.
That race can still happen, we would really need a sequence count check
over current CPU state to ensure we got a race-free qcss value, but at
least a check here should make the race implausible to hit.
Thanks,
Nick
>>
>> - for (tries = 0; tries < 25; tries++) {
>> + for (tries = 0; tries < 200; tries++) {
>> cpu_status = smp_query_cpu_stopped(pcpu);
>> if (cpu_status == QCSS_STOPPED ||
>> cpu_status == QCSS_HARDWARE_ERROR)
>> break;
>> - cpu_relax();
>> + udelay(100);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
>
