On 04/12/2017 10:44 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello,
>
...
>
> I agree. But there it nothing that says it is not reenterable. If you
> saw something in this line, can you please share?
>
>>>> will you generate a patch to do this?
>>> Sure. I will generate a patch to take care of 1) To make sure that
>>> orderly_poweroff is called only once right away. I have already
>>> tested.
>>>
>>> for 2) Cancel all the scheduled work queues to monitor the
>>> temperature.
>>> I will take some more time to make it and test.
>>>
>>> Is that okay? Or you want me to send both together?
>>>
>> I think you can send patch for step 1 first.
>
> I am happy to see that Keerthy found the problem with his setup and a
> possible solution. But I have a few concerns here.
>
> 1. If regular shutdown process takes 10seconds, that is a ballpark that
> thermal should never wait. orderly_poweroff() calls run_cmd() with wait
> flag set. That means, if regular userland shutdown takes 10s, we are
> waiting for it. Obviously this not acceptable. Specially if you setup
> critical trip to be 125C. Now, if you properly size the critical trip to
> fire before hotspot really reach 125C, for 10s (or the time it takes to
> shutdown), then fine. But based on what was described in this thread,
> his system is waiting 10s on regular shutdown, and his silicon is on
> out-of-spec temperature for 10s, which is wrong.
>
> 2. The above scenario is not acceptable in a long run, specially from a
> reliability perspective. If orderly_poweroff() has a possibility to
> simply never return (or take too long), I would say the thermal
> subsystem is using the wrong API.
>
Hh, I do not see that orderly_poweroff() will wait for anything now:
void orderly_poweroff(bool force)
{
if (force) /* do not override the pending "true" */
poweroff_force = true;
schedule_work(&poweroff_work);
^^^^^^^ async call. even here can be pretty big delay if system is under pressure
}
static int __orderly_poweroff(bool force)
{
int ret;
ret = run_cmd(poweroff_cmd);
^^^^ no wait for the process - only for exec. flags == UMH_WAIT_EXEC
if (ret && force) {
pr_warn("Failed to start orderly shutdown: forcing the issue\n");
/*
* I guess this should try to kick off some daemon to sync and
* poweroff asap. Or not even bother syncing if we're doing an
* emergency shutdown?
*/
emergency_sync();
kernel_power_off();
^^^ force power off, but only if run_cmd() failed - for example /sbin/poweroff doesn't exist
}
return ret;
}
static bool poweroff_force;
static void poweroff_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
{
__orderly_poweroff(poweroff_force);
}
As result thermal has no control of power off any more after calling orderly_poweroff() and can get the result
of US poweroff binary execution.
>
> If you are going to implement the above two patches, keep in mind:
> i. At least within the thermal subsystem, you need to take care of all
> zones that could trigger a shutdown.
> ii. serializing the calls to orderly_poweroff() seams to be more
> concerning than cancelling all monitoring.
>
>
--
regards,
-grygorii
--
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
