Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] kernel/watchdog: adapt the watchdog_hld interface for async model

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:53:45PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 09:03:17AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

+static void lockup_detector_delay_init(struct work_struct *work);
+bool hld_detector_delay_initialized __initdata;
+
+struct wait_queue_head hld_detector_wait __initdata =
+		__WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(hld_detector_wait);
+
+static struct work_struct detector_work __initdata =
+		__WORK_INITIALIZER(detector_work, lockup_detector_delay_init);
+
+static void __init lockup_detector_delay_init(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	wait_event(hld_detector_wait, hld_detector_delay_initialized);
+	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
+	if (!ret) {
+		nmi_watchdog_available = true;
+		lockup_detector_setup();

Is it really safe to call the entire lockup_detector_setup()
later?

It manipulates also softlockup detector. And more importantly,
the original call is before smp_init(). It means that it was
running when only single CPU was on.

For the race analysis, lockup_detector_reconfigure() is on the centre stage.
Since proc_watchdog_update() can call lockup_detector_reconfigure() to
re-initialize both soft and hard lockup detector, so the race issue
should be already taken into consideration.

quoted

It seems that x86 has some problem with hardlockup detector as
well. It later manipulates only the hardlockup detector. Also it uses
cpus_read_lock() to prevent races with CPU hotplug, see
fixup_ht_bug().

Yes. But hardlockup_detector_perf_{stop,start}() can not meet the
requirement, since no perf_event is created yet. So there is no handy
interface to re-initialize hardlockup detector directly.

quoted

quoted

+	} else {
+		WARN_ON(ret == -EBUSY);
+		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
+	}
+}
+
 void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
 {
+	int ret;
+
 	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
 		pr_info("Disabling watchdog on nohz_full cores by default\n");
 
 	cpumask_copy(&watchdog_cpumask,
 		     housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER));
 
-	if (!watchdog_nmi_probe())
+	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
+	if (!ret)
 		nmi_watchdog_available = true;
+	else if (ret == -EBUSY)
+		queue_work_on(smp_processor_id(), system_wq, &detector_work);

IMHO, this is not acceptable. It will block one worker until someone
wakes it. Only arm64 will have a code to wake up the work and only
when pmu is successfully initialized. In all other cases, the worker
will stay blocked forever.

What about consider -EBUSY and hld_detector_delay_initialized as a unit?

                                                                     ^^^
								     unity

If watchdog_nmi_probe() returns -EBUSY, then
set the state of ld_detector_delay_initialized as "waiting", and then moved to state "finished".

And at the end of do_initcalls(), check the state is "finished". If not,
then throw a warning and wake up the worker.

quoted

The right solution is to do it the other way. Queue the work
from arm64-specific code when armv8_pmu_driver_init() succeeded.

Could it be better if watchdog can provide a common framework for future
extension instead of arch specific? The 2nd argument is to avoid the
message "Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled" while later enabling
it.  (Please see
lockup_detector_init()->watchdog_nmi_probe()->hardlockup_detector_perf_init(),
but if providing arch specific probe method, it can be avoided)

Sorry for poor expression. I have not explained it completely for the
second point.

Since using arch specific watchdog_nmi_probe() to avoid misleading
message "Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled", then -EBUSY should be
returned. And from watchdog level, it should know how to handle error,
that is to say queue_work_on(smp_processor_id(), system_wq, &detector_work).

Thanks,

	Pingfan

quoted

Also I suggest to flush the work to make sure that it is finished
before __init code gets removed.

Good point, and very interesting. I will look into it.

quoted

The open question is what code the work will call. As mentioned
above, I am not sure that lockup_detector_delay_init() is safe.
IMHO, we need to manipulate only hardlockup detector and
we have to serialize it against CPU hotplug.

As explained ahead, it has already consider the race against CPU
hotplug.

Thanks,

	Pingfan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel