All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ananth@in.ibm.com, suzuki@in.ibm.com,
	ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	matt@ozlabs.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc, kexec: Fix "Processor X is stuck" issue during kexec from ST mode
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:46:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140604134649.GB27557@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401833365.3247.36.camel@pasglop>

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:09:25AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 01:58 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > Yep, that makes sense. But unfortunately I don't have enough insight into
> > why exactly powerpc has to online the CPUs before doing a kexec. I just
> > know from the commit log and the comment mentioned above (and from my own
> > experiments) that the CPUs will get stuck if they were offline. Perhaps
> > somebody more knowledgeable can explain this in detail and suggest a proper
> > long-term solution.
> > 
> > Matt, Ben, any thoughts on this?
> 
> The problem is with our "soft offline" which we do on some platforms. When we
> offline we don't actually send the CPUs back to firmware or anything like that.
> 
> We put them into a very low low power loop inside Linux.
> 
> The new kernel has no way to extract them from that loop. So we must re-"online"
> them before we kexec so they can be passed to the new kernel normally (or returned
> to firmware like we do on powernv).

Srivatsa,

Looks like your patch has been merged.

I don't like the following change in arch independent code.

/*
 * migrate_to_reboot_cpu() disables CPU hotplug assuming  that
 * no further code needs to use CPU hotplug (which is true in
 * the reboot case). However, the kexec path depends on  using
 * CPU hotplug again; so re-enable it here. 
 */
               cpu_hotplug_enable();

As it is very powerpc specific requirement, can you enable hotplug in powerpc
arch dependent code as a short term solution.

Ideally one needs to fix the requirement of online all cpus in powerpc
as a long term solution and then get rid of hotplug enable call.

Thanks
Vivek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, matt@ozlabs.org,
	mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suzuki@in.ibm.com,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, paulus@samba.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc, kexec: Fix "Processor X is stuck" issue during kexec from ST mode
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:46:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140604134649.GB27557@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401833365.3247.36.camel@pasglop>

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:09:25AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 01:58 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > Yep, that makes sense. But unfortunately I don't have enough insight into
> > why exactly powerpc has to online the CPUs before doing a kexec. I just
> > know from the commit log and the comment mentioned above (and from my own
> > experiments) that the CPUs will get stuck if they were offline. Perhaps
> > somebody more knowledgeable can explain this in detail and suggest a proper
> > long-term solution.
> > 
> > Matt, Ben, any thoughts on this?
> 
> The problem is with our "soft offline" which we do on some platforms. When we
> offline we don't actually send the CPUs back to firmware or anything like that.
> 
> We put them into a very low low power loop inside Linux.
> 
> The new kernel has no way to extract them from that loop. So we must re-"online"
> them before we kexec so they can be passed to the new kernel normally (or returned
> to firmware like we do on powernv).

Srivatsa,

Looks like your patch has been merged.

I don't like the following change in arch independent code.

/*
 * migrate_to_reboot_cpu() disables CPU hotplug assuming  that
 * no further code needs to use CPU hotplug (which is true in
 * the reboot case). However, the kexec path depends on  using
 * CPU hotplug again; so re-enable it here. 
 */
               cpu_hotplug_enable();

As it is very powerpc specific requirement, can you enable hotplug in powerpc
arch dependent code as a short term solution.

Ideally one needs to fix the requirement of online all cpus in powerpc
as a long term solution and then get rid of hotplug enable call.

Thanks
Vivek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ananth@in.ibm.com, matt@ozlabs.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	suzuki@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc, kexec: Fix "Processor X is stuck" issue during kexec from ST mode
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:46:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140604134649.GB27557@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401833365.3247.36.camel@pasglop>

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:09:25AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 01:58 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > Yep, that makes sense. But unfortunately I don't have enough insight into
> > why exactly powerpc has to online the CPUs before doing a kexec. I just
> > know from the commit log and the comment mentioned above (and from my own
> > experiments) that the CPUs will get stuck if they were offline. Perhaps
> > somebody more knowledgeable can explain this in detail and suggest a proper
> > long-term solution.
> > 
> > Matt, Ben, any thoughts on this?
> 
> The problem is with our "soft offline" which we do on some platforms. When we
> offline we don't actually send the CPUs back to firmware or anything like that.
> 
> We put them into a very low low power loop inside Linux.
> 
> The new kernel has no way to extract them from that loop. So we must re-"online"
> them before we kexec so they can be passed to the new kernel normally (or returned
> to firmware like we do on powernv).

Srivatsa,

Looks like your patch has been merged.

I don't like the following change in arch independent code.

/*
 * migrate_to_reboot_cpu() disables CPU hotplug assuming  that
 * no further code needs to use CPU hotplug (which is true in
 * the reboot case). However, the kexec path depends on  using
 * CPU hotplug again; so re-enable it here. 
 */
               cpu_hotplug_enable();

As it is very powerpc specific requirement, can you enable hotplug in powerpc
arch dependent code as a short term solution.

Ideally one needs to fix the requirement of online all cpus in powerpc
as a long term solution and then get rid of hotplug enable call.

Thanks
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-04 13:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-27 10:55 [PATCH] powerpc, kexec: Fix "Processor X is stuck" issue during kexec from ST mode Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-27 10:55 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-27 10:55 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-28 13:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-05-28 13:31   ` Vivek Goyal
2014-05-28 13:31   ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-03 20:28   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-03 20:28     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-03 20:28     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-03 22:09     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-06-03 22:09       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-06-03 22:09       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-06-04 13:46       ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2014-06-04 13:46         ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-04 13:46         ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-06 12:30         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:30           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:30           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 18:27           ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-06 18:27             ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-06 18:27             ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-06 19:00             ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 19:00               ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 19:00               ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:29       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:29         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:29         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:37         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:37           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:37           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 21:16         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 21:16           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 21:16           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-12  6:39           ` Joel Stanley
2014-06-12  6:39             ` Joel Stanley
2014-06-12  6:39             ` Joel Stanley
2014-06-12  8:17             ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-12  8:17               ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-12  8:17               ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-04 13:41     ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-04 13:41       ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-04 13:41       ` Vivek Goyal
2014-06-06 12:31       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:31         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-06 12:31         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140604134649.GB27557@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=matt@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=suzuki@in.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.