Re: [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly_poweroff
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Jan 19 2016 - 04:06:43 EST
* Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 12:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> If kernel_power_off() is called then the system should power off. No ifs and
> >>> whens.
> >> Even if it doesn't the watchdog should kill it.
> >> That is broken on some platforms on the watchdog side as the
> >> watchdog shuts down during our power off callbacks - because the system
> >> firmware is too stupid to reset the watchdog as it powers back up (so
> >> keeps rebooting).
> >> If you watchdog and firmware function properly you shouldn't even have to
> >> care if you crash during the kernel power off.
> > That's a good point as well - if the system is 'stuck' for some notion of stuck,
> > then watchdog drivers can help.
> Seems ARM doesn't have endless loop implemented in machine_power_off() - so,
> not too much chances for Watchdog to fire.
> void machine_power_off(void)
> if (pm_power_off)
> --- endless loop ?
> --- or restart ?
> [and even if it will be there - 20-30sec is usual timeout for Watchdog and this
> enough time to burn the system in case of thermal emergency poweroff :(]
> > Here it's unclear whether user-space even called the sys_reboot() system call.
> That's true - original log  has
> Nov 30 11:19:22 [ 5.942769] thermal thermal_zone3: critical temperature reached(108 C),shutting down
> Nov 30 11:19:24 [ 7.387900] ahci 4a140000.sata: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led clo only pmp pio slum part ccc apst
> Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Switching to runlevel: 0
> Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Sending processes the TERM signal
> and there are no
> [ 220.004522] reboot: Power down
> Also, It's not the first time this part of code is discussed (thermal emergency poweroff) ,
> so the good question, as for me, is it really required and safe to use orderly_poweroff() in
> case of thermal emergency poweroff ( as example)?
> In general, this kind of use case can be simulated using SysRq on any arch
> - [3.290034] Freeing unused kernel memory: 492K (c0a67000 - c0ae2000)
> INIT: version 2.88 booting
> Starting udev
> ^^ The issue most probably might happens when system in the process of loading modules
> So, once modules loading process is started - fire Sysrq "poweroff(o)"
So I'd say emergency poweroff should be named accordingly - and the
orderly_poweroff() name suggest anything but an emergency, right?
So I'd be fine with the following:
- introduce a poweroff_emergency() core kernel function call
- use it in drivers where it's justified
- poweroff_emergency() has a configurable timeout value. If the timeout value is
set to 0 then it powers the system off immediately.
Functionally it would be mostly equivalent to your current patch (except the '0'
immediate poweroff functionality).