[PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Fix the hardlockup by synchronus smp_call in timer interrupt

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:47:32 +0530
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 04/24/2018 11:30 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:11:46 +0530
> > Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> gpstate_timer_handler() uses synchronous smp_call to set the pstate
> >> on the requested core. This causes the below hard lockup:
> >>
> >> [c000003fe566b320] [c0000000001d5340] smp_call_function_single+0x110/0x180 (unreliable)
> >> [c000003fe566b390] [c0000000001d55e0] smp_call_function_any+0x180/0x250
> >> [c000003fe566b3f0] [c000000000acd3e8] gpstate_timer_handler+0x1e8/0x580
> >> [c000003fe566b4a0] [c0000000001b46b0] call_timer_fn+0x50/0x1c0
> >> [c000003fe566b520] [c0000000001b4958] expire_timers+0x138/0x1f0
> >> [c000003fe566b590] [c0000000001b4bf8] run_timer_softirq+0x1e8/0x270
> >> [c000003fe566b630] [c000000000d0d6c8] __do_softirq+0x158/0x3e4
> >> [c000003fe566b710] [c000000000114be8] irq_exit+0xe8/0x120
> >> [c000003fe566b730] [c000000000024d0c] timer_interrupt+0x9c/0xe0
> >> [c000003fe566b760] [c000000000009014] decrementer_common+0x114/0x120
> >> --- interrupt: 901 at doorbell_global_ipi+0x34/0x50
> >> LR = arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask+0x120/0x130
> >> [c000003fe566ba50] [c00000000004876c] arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask+0x4c/0x130 (unreliable)
> >> [c000003fe566ba90] [c0000000001d59f0] smp_call_function_many+0x340/0x450
> >> [c000003fe566bb00] [c000000000075f18] pmdp_invalidate+0x98/0xe0
> >> [c000003fe566bb30] [c0000000003a1120] change_huge_pmd+0xe0/0x270
> >> [c000003fe566bba0] [c000000000349278] change_protection_range+0xb88/0xe40
> >> [c000003fe566bcf0] [c0000000003496c0] mprotect_fixup+0x140/0x340
> >> [c000003fe566bdb0] [c000000000349a74] SyS_mprotect+0x1b4/0x350
> >> [c000003fe566be30] [c00000000000b184] system_call+0x58/0x6c
> >>
> >> Fix this by using the asynchronus smp_call in the timer interrupt handler.
> >> We don't have to wait in this handler until the pstates are changed on
> >> the core. This change will not have any impact on the global pstate
> >> ramp-down algorithm.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
> >> Reported-by: Pridhiviraj Paidipeddi <ppaidipe at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> >> index 0591874..7e0c752 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ void gpstate_timer_handler(struct timer_list *t)
> >>  	spin_unlock(&gpstates->gpstate_lock);
> >>  
> >>  	/* Timer may get migrated to a different cpu on cpu hot unplug */
> >> -	smp_call_function_any(policy->cpus, set_pstate, &freq_data, 1);
> >> +	smp_call_function_any(policy->cpus, set_pstate, &freq_data, 0);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /*  
> > 
> > This can still deadlock because !wait case still ends up having to wait
> > if another !wait smp_call_function caller had previously used the
> > call single data for this cpu.
> > 
> > If you go this way you would have to use smp_call_function_async, which
> > is more work.
> > 
> > As a rule it would be better to avoid smp_call_function entirely if
> > possible. Can you ensure the timer is running on the right CPU? Use
> > add_timer_on and try again if the timer is on the wrong CPU, perhaps?
> >   
> 
> Yeah that is doable we can check for the cpu and re-queue it. We will only
> ramp-down slower in that case which is no harm.

Great, I'd be much happier avoiding that IPI. I guess it should happen
quite rarely that we have to queue on a different CPU. I would say just
do add_timer unless we have migrated to the wrong CPU, then do add_timer_on
in that case (it's a bit slower).

> (If the targeted core turns out to be offline then we will not queue the timer
> again as we would have already set the pstate to min in the cpu-down path.)

Something I noticed is that if we can not get the lock (trylock fails),
then the timer does not get queued again. Should it?

Thanks,
Nick