On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:23:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
> > > if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
> > > - cpuhp_reset_state(st, prev_state);
> > > + /*
> > > + * As st->last is not set, cpuhp_reset_state() increments
> > > + * st->state, which results in CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS being
> > > + * skipped during rollback. So, don't use it here.
> > > + */
> > > + st->rollback = true;
> > > + st->target = prev_state;
> > > + st->bringup = !st->bringup;
> >
> > No, this is just papering over the actual problem.
> >
> > The state inconsistency happens in take_cpu_down() when it returns with a
> > failure from __cpu_disable() because that returns with state = TEARDOWN_CPU
> > and st->state is then incremented in undo_cpu_down().
> >
> > That's the real issue and we need to analyze the whole cpu_down rollback
> > logic first.
>
> And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARDOWN state
> makes it simple to observe. It's universaly broken, when the first teardown
> callback fails because, st->state is only decremented _AFTER_ the callback
> returns success, but undo_cpu_down() increments unconditionally.
>
> Patch below.
This patch fixes the issue reported @[1]. Lorenzo did some debugging and
I wanted to have a look at it at some point but this discussion drew my
attention and sounded very similar[2]. So I did a quick test with this
patch and it fixes the issue.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdVg868LgL5xTg5Dp5rReKxoo+8fRy+ETJiMxGWZCp+hWw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180823131505.GA31558@red-moon/
