276 lines
12 KiB
Text
276 lines
12 KiB
Text
|
Interaction of Suspend code (S3) with the CPU hotplug infrastructure
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(C) 2011 - 2014 Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I. How does the regular CPU hotplug code differ from how the Suspend-to-RAM
|
||
|
|
infrastructure uses it internally? And where do they share common code?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Well, a picture is worth a thousand words... So ASCII art follows :-)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[This depicts the current design in the kernel, and focusses only on the
|
||
|
|
interactions involving the freezer and CPU hotplug and also tries to explain
|
||
|
|
the locking involved. It outlines the notifications involved as well.
|
||
|
|
But please note that here, only the call paths are illustrated, with the aim
|
||
|
|
of describing where they take different paths and where they share code.
|
||
|
|
What happens when regular CPU hotplug and Suspend-to-RAM race with each other
|
||
|
|
is not depicted here.]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
On a high level, the suspend-resume cycle goes like this:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|Freeze| -> |Disable nonboot| -> |Do suspend| -> |Enable nonboot| -> |Thaw |
|
||
|
|
|tasks | | cpus | | | | cpus | |tasks|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
More details follow:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Suspend call path
|
||
|
|
-----------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Write 'mem' to
|
||
|
|
/sys/power/state
|
||
|
|
sysfs file
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Acquire pm_mutex lock
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Send PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE
|
||
|
|
notifications
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Freeze tasks
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
disable_nonboot_cpus()
|
||
|
|
/* start */
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Acquire cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Iterate over CURRENTLY
|
||
|
|
online CPUs
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ----------
|
||
|
|
v | L
|
||
|
|
======> _cpu_down() |
|
||
|
|
| [This takes cpuhotplug.lock |
|
||
|
|
Common | before taking down the CPU |
|
||
|
|
code | and releases it when done] | O
|
||
|
|
| While it is at it, notifications |
|
||
|
|
| are sent when notable events occur, |
|
||
|
|
======> by running all registered callbacks. |
|
||
|
|
| | O
|
||
|
|
| |
|
||
|
|
| |
|
||
|
|
v |
|
||
|
|
Note down these cpus in | P
|
||
|
|
frozen_cpus mask ----------
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Disable regular cpu hotplug
|
||
|
|
by setting cpu_hotplug_disabled=1
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Release cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
/* disable_nonboot_cpus() complete */
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Do suspend
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Resuming back is likewise, with the counterparts being (in the order of
|
||
|
|
execution during resume):
|
||
|
|
* enable_nonboot_cpus() which involves:
|
||
|
|
| Acquire cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
| Reset cpu_hotplug_disabled to 0, thereby enabling regular cpu hotplug
|
||
|
|
| Call _cpu_up() [for all those cpus in the frozen_cpus mask, in a loop]
|
||
|
|
| Release cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* thaw tasks
|
||
|
|
* send PM_POST_SUSPEND notifications
|
||
|
|
* Release pm_mutex lock.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It is to be noted here that the pm_mutex lock is acquired at the very
|
||
|
|
beginning, when we are just starting out to suspend, and then released only
|
||
|
|
after the entire cycle is complete (i.e., suspend + resume).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Regular CPU hotplug call path
|
||
|
|
-----------------------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Write 0 (or 1) to
|
||
|
|
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/online
|
||
|
|
sysfs file
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
cpu_down()
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Acquire cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
If cpu_hotplug_disabled is 1
|
||
|
|
return gracefully
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
======> _cpu_down()
|
||
|
|
| [This takes cpuhotplug.lock
|
||
|
|
Common | before taking down the CPU
|
||
|
|
code | and releases it when done]
|
||
|
|
| While it is at it, notifications
|
||
|
|
| are sent when notable events occur,
|
||
|
|
======> by running all registered callbacks.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
v
|
||
|
|
Release cpu_add_remove_lock
|
||
|
|
[That's it!, for
|
||
|
|
regular CPU hotplug]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So, as can be seen from the two diagrams (the parts marked as "Common code"),
|
||
|
|
regular CPU hotplug and the suspend code path converge at the _cpu_down() and
|
||
|
|
_cpu_up() functions. They differ in the arguments passed to these functions,
|
||
|
|
in that during regular CPU hotplug, 0 is passed for the 'tasks_frozen'
|
||
|
|
argument. But during suspend, since the tasks are already frozen by the time
|
||
|
|
the non-boot CPUs are offlined or onlined, the _cpu_*() functions are called
|
||
|
|
with the 'tasks_frozen' argument set to 1.
|
||
|
|
[See below for some known issues regarding this.]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Important files and functions/entry points:
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
kernel/power/process.c : freeze_processes(), thaw_processes()
|
||
|
|
kernel/power/suspend.c : suspend_prepare(), suspend_enter(), suspend_finish()
|
||
|
|
kernel/cpu.c: cpu_[up|down](), _cpu_[up|down](), [disable|enable]_nonboot_cpus()
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
II. What are the issues involved in CPU hotplug?
|
||
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
There are some interesting situations involving CPU hotplug and microcode
|
||
|
|
update on the CPUs, as discussed below:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[Please bear in mind that the kernel requests the microcode images from
|
||
|
|
userspace, using the request_firmware() function defined in
|
||
|
|
drivers/base/firmware_class.c]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
a. When all the CPUs are identical:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This is the most common situation and it is quite straightforward: we want
|
||
|
|
to apply the same microcode revision to each of the CPUs.
|
||
|
|
To give an example of x86, the collect_cpu_info() function defined in
|
||
|
|
arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c helps in discovering the type of the CPU
|
||
|
|
and thereby in applying the correct microcode revision to it.
|
||
|
|
But note that the kernel does not maintain a common microcode image for the
|
||
|
|
all CPUs, in order to handle case 'b' described below.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
b. When some of the CPUs are different than the rest:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In this case since we probably need to apply different microcode revisions
|
||
|
|
to different CPUs, the kernel maintains a copy of the correct microcode
|
||
|
|
image for each CPU (after appropriate CPU type/model discovery using
|
||
|
|
functions such as collect_cpu_info()).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
c. When a CPU is physically hot-unplugged and a new (and possibly different
|
||
|
|
type of) CPU is hot-plugged into the system:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In the current design of the kernel, whenever a CPU is taken offline during
|
||
|
|
a regular CPU hotplug operation, upon receiving the CPU_DEAD notification
|
||
|
|
(which is sent by the CPU hotplug code), the microcode update driver's
|
||
|
|
callback for that event reacts by freeing the kernel's copy of the
|
||
|
|
microcode image for that CPU.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Hence, when a new CPU is brought online, since the kernel finds that it
|
||
|
|
doesn't have the microcode image, it does the CPU type/model discovery
|
||
|
|
afresh and then requests the userspace for the appropriate microcode image
|
||
|
|
for that CPU, which is subsequently applied.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For example, in x86, the mc_cpu_callback() function (which is the microcode
|
||
|
|
update driver's callback registered for CPU hotplug events) calls
|
||
|
|
microcode_update_cpu() which would call microcode_init_cpu() in this case,
|
||
|
|
instead of microcode_resume_cpu() when it finds that the kernel doesn't
|
||
|
|
have a valid microcode image. This ensures that the CPU type/model
|
||
|
|
discovery is performed and the right microcode is applied to the CPU after
|
||
|
|
getting it from userspace.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
d. Handling microcode update during suspend/hibernate:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Strictly speaking, during a CPU hotplug operation which does not involve
|
||
|
|
physically removing or inserting CPUs, the CPUs are not actually powered
|
||
|
|
off during a CPU offline. They are just put to the lowest C-states possible.
|
||
|
|
Hence, in such a case, it is not really necessary to re-apply microcode
|
||
|
|
when the CPUs are brought back online, since they wouldn't have lost the
|
||
|
|
image during the CPU offline operation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This is the usual scenario encountered during a resume after a suspend.
|
||
|
|
However, in the case of hibernation, since all the CPUs are completely
|
||
|
|
powered off, during restore it becomes necessary to apply the microcode
|
||
|
|
images to all the CPUs.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[Note that we don't expect someone to physically pull out nodes and insert
|
||
|
|
nodes with a different type of CPUs in-between a suspend-resume or a
|
||
|
|
hibernate/restore cycle.]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In the current design of the kernel however, during a CPU offline operation
|
||
|
|
as part of the suspend/hibernate cycle (the CPU_DEAD_FROZEN notification),
|
||
|
|
the existing copy of microcode image in the kernel is not freed up.
|
||
|
|
And during the CPU online operations (during resume/restore), since the
|
||
|
|
kernel finds that it already has copies of the microcode images for all the
|
||
|
|
CPUs, it just applies them to the CPUs, avoiding any re-discovery of CPU
|
||
|
|
type/model and the need for validating whether the microcode revisions are
|
||
|
|
right for the CPUs or not (due to the above assumption that physical CPU
|
||
|
|
hotplug will not be done in-between suspend/resume or hibernate/restore
|
||
|
|
cycles).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
III. Are there any known problems when regular CPU hotplug and suspend race
|
||
|
|
with each other?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes, they are listed below:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. When invoking regular CPU hotplug, the 'tasks_frozen' argument passed to
|
||
|
|
the _cpu_down() and _cpu_up() functions is *always* 0.
|
||
|
|
This might not reflect the true current state of the system, since the
|
||
|
|
tasks could have been frozen by an out-of-band event such as a suspend
|
||
|
|
operation in progress. Hence, it will lead to wrong notifications being
|
||
|
|
sent during the cpu online/offline events (eg, CPU_ONLINE notification
|
||
|
|
instead of CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN) which in turn will lead to execution of
|
||
|
|
inappropriate code by the callbacks registered for such CPU hotplug events.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. If a regular CPU hotplug stress test happens to race with the freezer due
|
||
|
|
to a suspend operation in progress at the same time, then we could hit the
|
||
|
|
situation described below:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* A regular cpu online operation continues its journey from userspace
|
||
|
|
into the kernel, since the freezing has not yet begun.
|
||
|
|
* Then freezer gets to work and freezes userspace.
|
||
|
|
* If cpu online has not yet completed the microcode update stuff by now,
|
||
|
|
it will now start waiting on the frozen userspace in the
|
||
|
|
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, in order to get the microcode image.
|
||
|
|
* Now the freezer continues and tries to freeze the remaining tasks. But
|
||
|
|
due to this wait mentioned above, the freezer won't be able to freeze
|
||
|
|
the cpu online hotplug task and hence freezing of tasks fails.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As a result of this task freezing failure, the suspend operation gets
|
||
|
|
aborted.
|