On Wed, Apr 23 2008, Mark Lord wrote: > >>>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:48 -0500 > >>>From: Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> > >>>To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> > >>>Cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > >>> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > >>> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>Subject: Re: EIP is at device_shutdown+0x32/0x60 > >>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>>Sender: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> > >>>... < snip > ... > >>> > >>>Greg, I don't know if this is relevant or not, > >>>but x86 has bugs in the halt/reboot code for SMP. > >>> > >>>Specifically, in native_smp_send_stop() the code now uses > >>>spin_trylock() to "lock" the shared call buffers, > >>>but then ignores the result. > >>> > >>>This means that multiple CPUs can/will clobber each other > >>>in that code. > >>> > >>>The second bug, is that this code does not wait for the > >>>target CPUs to actually stop before it continues. > >>> > >>>This was the real cause of the failure-to-poweroff problems > >>>I was having with 2.6.23, which we fixed by using CPU hotplug > >>>to disable_nonboot_cpus() before the above code ever got run. > > Jens Axboe wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Mark Lord wrote: > >>Jens, > >> > >>While you're in there, :) > >> > >>Could you perhaps fix this bug (above) if it still exists? > > > >I don't understand the bug - what are the shared call buffers you are > >talking of? > > > >With the changes, there's not even an spin_trylock() in there anymore. > >But I don't see the original bug either, so... > .. > > arch/x86/kernel/smp.c: > > static void native_smp_send_stop(void) > { > int nolock; > unsigned long flags; > > if (reboot_force) > return; > > /* Don't deadlock on the call lock in panic */ > nolock = !spin_trylock(&call_lock); <<<<<<<<<< buggy > local_irq_save(flags); > __smp_call_function(stop_this_cpu, NULL, 0, 0); > if (!nolock) > spin_unlock(&call_lock); > disable_local_APIC(); > local_irq_restore(flags); > } > > The spinlock is trying to protect access to the global variable > "call_data" (higher up in the same file), which is used > in __smp_call_function() and friends. > > But since the spinlock is ignored in this case, > the global "call_data will get clobbered if it was already in-use. Ah I see, that bug doesn't exist with the converted code. > The second bug, is that for the halt case at least, > nobody waits for the other CPU to actually halt > before continuing.. so we sometimes enter the shutdown > code while other CPUs are still active. > > This causes some machines to hang at shutdown, > unless CPU_HOTPLUG is configured and takes them offline > before we get here. I'm guessing there's a reason it doesn't pass '1' as the last argument, because that would fix that issue? -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html