Re: suspend regression in 4.1-rc1

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 18-05-15 09:30:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 09:33:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The merge commit is empty and both 80dcc31fbe55 and e4b0db72be24 work
> > > properly but the merge is bad. So it seems like some of the commits in
> > > either branch has a side effect which needs other branch in order to
> > > reproduce.
> > >
> > > So've tried to bisect ^80dcc31fbe55 e4b0db72be24 and merged 80dcc31fbe55
> > > in each step.
> > 
> > Good extra work! Thanks.
> > 
> > > This lead to:
> > >
> > > commit 195daf665a6299de98a4da3843fed2dd9de19d3a
> > > Author: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date:   Tue Apr 14 15:44:13 2015 -0700
> > >
> > >     watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog mechanism
> > >
> > > The patch doesn't revert because of follow up changes so I have reverted
> > > all three:
> > > 692297d8f968 ("watchdog: introduce the hardlockup_detector_disable() function")
> > > b2f57c3a0df9 ("watchdog: clean up some function names and arguments")
> > > 195daf665a62 ("watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog mechanism")
> > 
> > Hmm. I guess we should just revert those three then. Unless somebody
> > can see what the subtle interaction is.
> > 
> > Actually, looking closer, on the *other* side of the merge, the only
> > commit that looks like it might be conflicting is
> > 
> >     b3738d293233 "watchdog: Add watchdog enable/disable all functions"
> > 
> > which is then used by
> > 
> >     b37609c30e41 "perf/x86/intel: Make the HT bug workaround
> > conditional on HT enabled"
> > 
> > Does the problem go away if you revert *those* two commits instead?
> > 
> > At least that would tell is what the exact bad interaction is.
> > 
> > Adding Stephane (author of those watchdog/perf patches) to the Cc. And
> > PeterZ, who signed them off (Ingo also did, but was already on the
> > participants list).
> > 
> > Anybody see it?
> 
> The 'obvious' discrepancy is that 195daf665a62 ("watchdog: enable the
> new user interface of the watchdog mechanism") changes the semantics of
> watchdog_user_enabled, which thereafter is only used by the functions
> introduced by b3738d293233 ("watchdog: Add watchdog enable/disable all
> functions").

Yeah, this is it! b3738d293233 was definitely in the range I was testing
when merging 195daf665 into e95e7f627062..80dcc31fbe55. I must have
screwed something.

> There further appears to be a distinct lack of serialization between
> setting and using watchdog_enabled, so perhaps we should wrap the
> {en,dis}able_all() things in watchdog_proc_mutex.
> 
> Let me go see if I can reproduce / test this.. as is the below is
> entirely untested.

This doesn't hang anymore. I've just had to move the mutex definition
up to make it compile. So feel free to add my
Reported-and-tested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>

Thanks!

diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 56aeedb087e3..c398596c35b8 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -604,6 +604,8 @@ static void watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu)
 	}
 }
 
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(watchdog_proc_mutex);
+
 void watchdog_nmi_enable_all(void)
 {
 	int cpu;
@@ -752,8 +754,6 @@ static int proc_watchdog_update(void)
 
 }
 
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(watchdog_proc_mutex);
-
 /*
  * common function for watchdog, nmi_watchdog and soft_watchdog parameter
  *

> 
> ---
>  kernel/watchdog.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 2316f50b07a4..56aeedb087e3 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -608,19 +608,25 @@ void watchdog_nmi_enable_all(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
>  
> -	if (!watchdog_user_enabled)
> +	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> +
> +	if (!(watchdog_enabled & NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED))
>  		return;
>  
>  	get_online_cpus();
>  	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>  		watchdog_nmi_enable(cpu);
>  	put_online_cpus();
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
>  }
>  
>  void watchdog_nmi_disable_all(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> +
>  	if (!watchdog_running)
>  		return;
>  
> @@ -628,6 +634,8 @@ void watchdog_nmi_disable_all(void)
>  	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>  		watchdog_nmi_disable(cpu);
>  	put_online_cpus();
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
>  }
>  #else
>  static int watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/