* Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/15/2016 12:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> If kernel_power_off() is called then the system should power off. No ifs and > >>> whens. > >> > >> Even if it doesn't the watchdog should kill it. > >> > >> That is broken on some platforms on the watchdog side as the > >> watchdog shuts down during our power off callbacks - because the system > >> firmware is too stupid to reset the watchdog as it powers back up (so > >> keeps rebooting). > >> > >> If you watchdog and firmware function properly you shouldn't even have to > >> care if you crash during the kernel power off. > > > > That's a good point as well - if the system is 'stuck' for some notion of stuck, > > then watchdog drivers can help. > > > > Seems ARM doesn't have endless loop implemented in machine_power_off() - so, > not too much chances for Watchdog to fire. > void machine_power_off(void) > { > local_irq_disable(); > smp_send_stop(); > > if (pm_power_off) > pm_power_off(); > > --- endless loop ? > --- or restart ? > } > [and even if it will be there - 20-30sec is usual timeout for Watchdog and this > enough time to burn the system in case of thermal emergency poweroff :(] > > > Here it's unclear whether user-space even called the sys_reboot() system call. > > > > That's true - original log [1] has > Nov 30 11:19:22 [ 5.942769] thermal thermal_zone3: critical temperature reached(108 C),shutting down > [...] > Nov 30 11:19:24 [ 7.387900] ahci 4a140000.sata: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led clo only pmp pio slum part ccc apst > Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Switching to runlevel: 0 > Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Sending processes the TERM signal > > and there are no > [ 220.004522] reboot: Power down > > > Also, It's not the first time this part of code is discussed (thermal emergency poweroff) [2], > so the good question, as for me, is it really required and safe to use orderly_poweroff() in > case of thermal emergency poweroff ([3] as example)? > > In general, this kind of use case can be simulated using SysRq on any arch > - [3.290034] Freeing unused kernel memory: 492K (c0a67000 - c0ae2000) > INIT: version 2.88 booting > Starting udev > ^^ The issue most probably might happens when system in the process of loading modules > So, once modules loading process is started - fire Sysrq "poweroff(o)" So I'd say emergency poweroff should be named accordingly - and the orderly_poweroff() name suggest anything but an emergency, right? So I'd be fine with the following: - introduce a poweroff_emergency() core kernel function call - use it in drivers where it's justified - poweroff_emergency() has a configurable timeout value. If the timeout value is set to 0 then it powers the system off immediately. Functionally it would be mostly equivalent to your current patch (except the '0' immediate poweroff functionality). Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html