[PATCH] powerpc/perf: Fix core-imc hotplug callback failure during imc initialization

[Madhavan Srinivasan]

On Friday 03 November 2017 05:49 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday 01 November 2017 06:22 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Anju T Sudhakar <anju at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Call trace observed during boot:
>>> What's the actual oops?
>> I could recreate this in mambo with CPUS=2 and THREAD=2
> That boots fine for me.
>
> Presumably you've also done something to cause the CPU online to fail
> and trigger the bug.

My bad. Yes, in the mem_init code for the second core,
i forced a fail in mambo with below hack.

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
index 38fdaee5c61f..11fac5d78324 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
@@ -548,6 +548,9 @@ static int core_imc_mem_init(int cpu, int size)
         rc = opal_imc_counters_init(OPAL_IMC_COUNTERS_CORE,
                                 __pa((void *)mem_info->vbase),
                                 get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu));
+       if (cpu == 2)
+               rc = -1;
+
         if (rc) {
                 free_pages((u64)mem_info->vbase, get_order(size));
                 mem_info->vbase = NULL;


Sorry for missed this detail.

Maddy

>
>> Here is the complete stack trace.
>>
>> [    0.045367] core_imc memory allocation for cpu 2 failed
>> [    0.045408] Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at
>> address 0x7d20e2a6f92d03b8
>> [    0.045443] Faulting instruction address: 0xc0000000000dde18
>> cpu 0x0: Vector: 380 (Data Access Out of Range) at [c0000000fd1cb890]
>>       pc: c0000000000dde18: event_function_call+0x28/0x14c
>>       lr: c0000000000dde00: event_function_call+0x10/0x14c
>>       sp: c0000000fd1cbb10
>>      msr: 9000000000009033
>>      dar: 7d20e2a6f92d03b8
>>     current = 0xc0000000fd15da00
>>     paca    = 0xc00000000fff0000   softe: 0        irq_happened: 0x01
>>       pid   = 11, comm = cpuhp/0
>> Linux version 4.14.0-rc7-00014-g0a08377b127b (maddy at SrihariSrinidhi)
>> (gcc version 5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.1)) #5 SMP
>> Wed Nov 1 14:12:27 IST 2017
>> enter ? for help
>> [c0000000fd1cbb10] 0000000000000000 (unreliable)
>> [c0000000fd1cbba0] c0000000000de180 perf_remove_from_context+0x30/0x9c
>> [c0000000fd1cbbe0] c0000000000e9108 perf_pmu_migrate_context+0x9c/0x224
>> [c0000000fd1cbc60] c0000000000682e0 ppc_core_imc_cpu_offline+0xdc/0x144
>> [c0000000fd1cbcb0] c000000000070568 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xe4/0x244
>> [c0000000fd1cbd10] c000000000070824 cpuhp_thread_fun+0x15c/0x1b0
>> [c0000000fd1cbd60] c00000000008e8cc smpboot_thread_fn+0x1e0/0x200
>> [c0000000fd1cbdc0] c00000000008ae58 kthread+0x150/0x158
>> [c0000000fd1cbe30] c00000000000b464 ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x78
>>
>>
>>>> [c000000ff38ffb80] c0000000002ddfac perf_pmu_migrate_context+0xac/0x470
>>>> [c000000ff38ffc40] c00000000011385c ppc_core_imc_cpu_offline+0x1ac/0x1e0
>>>> [c000000ff38ffc90] c000000000125758 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x198/0x5d0
>>>> [c000000ff38ffd00] c00000000012782c cpuhp_thread_fun+0x8c/0x3d0
>>>> [c000000ff38ffd60] c0000000001678d0 smpboot_thread_fn+0x290/0x2a0
>>>> [c000000ff38ffdc0] c00000000015ee78 kthread+0x168/0x1b0
>>>> [c000000ff38ffe30] c00000000000b368 ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x74
>>>>
>>>> While registering the cpuhoplug callbacks for core-imc, if we fails
>>>> in the cpuhotplug online path for any random core (either because opal call to
>>>> initialize the core-imc counters fails or because memory allocation fails for
>>>> that core), ppc_core_imc_cpu_offline() will get invoked for other cpus who
>>>> successfully returned from cpuhotplug online path.
>>>>
>>>> But in the ppc_core_imc_cpu_offline() path we are trying to migrate the event
>>>> context, when core-imc counters are not even initialized. Thus creating the
>>>> above stack dump.
>>>>
>>>> Add a check to see if core-imc counters are enabled or not in the cpuhotplug
>>>> offline path before migrating the context to handle this failing scenario.
>>> Why do we need a bool to track this? Can't we just check the data
>>> structure we're deinitialising has been initialised?
>> My bad. yes we could do that. Something like this will work?
>>
>> @@ -606,6 +608,20 @@ static int ppc_core_imc_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>>           if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &core_imc_cpumask))
>>                   return 0;
>>
>> +       /*
>> +        * Check whether core_imc is registered. We could end up here
>> +        * if the cpuhotplug callback registration fails. i.e, callback
>> +        * invokes the offline path for all sucessfully registered cpus.
>> +        * At this stage, core_imc pmu will not be registered and we
>> +        * should return here.
>> +        *
>> +        * We return with a zero since this is not a offline failure.
>> +        * And cpuhp_setup_state() returns the actual failure reason
>> +        * to the caller, which inturn will call the cleanup routine.
>> +        */
>> +       if (!core_imc_pmu->pmu.event_init)
>> +               return 0;
>> +
>>           /* Find any online cpu in that core except the current "cpu" */
>>           ncpu = cpumask_any_but(cpu_sibling_mask(cpu), cpu);
>
> That's not ideal, because you're grovelling into the details of the pmu
> struct. But I guess it's OK for now.
>
> cheers
>