Re: [PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Use hlt_play_dead() when resuming from hibernation

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Wed Jul 13 2016 - 08:41:57 EST

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun 2016-07-10 03:49:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> On Intel hardware, native_play_dead() uses mwait_play_dead() by
>>> default and only falls back to the other methods if that fails.
>>> That also happens during resume from hibernation, when the restore
>>> (boot) kernel runs disable_nonboot_cpus() to take all of the CPUs
>>> except for the boot one offline.
>>> However, that is problematic, because the address passed to
>>> __monitor() in mwait_play_dead() is likely to be written to in the
>>> last phase of hibernate image restoration and that causes the "dead"
>>> CPU to start executing instructions again. Unfortunately, the page
>>> containing the address in that CPU's instruction pointer may not be
>>> valid any more at that point.
>>> First, that page may have been overwritten with image kernel memory
>>> contents already, so the instructions the CPU attempts to execute may
>>> simply be invalid. Second, the page tables previously used by that
>>> CPU may have been overwritten by image kernel memory contents, so the
>>> address in its instruction pointer is impossible to resolve then.
>>> A report from Varun Koyyalagunta and investigation carried out by
>>> Chen Yu show that the latter sometimes happens in practice.
>>> To prevent it from happening, modify native_play_dead() to make
>>> it use hlt_play_dead() instead of mwait_play_dead() during resume
>>> from hibernation which avoids the inadvertent "revivals" of "dead"
>>> CPUs.
>>> A slightly unpleasant consequence of this change is that if the
>>> system is hibernated with one or more CPUs offline, it will generally
>>> draw more power after resume than it did before hibernation, because
>>> the physical state entered by CPUs via hlt_play_dead() is higher-power
>>> than the mwait_play_dead() one in the majority of cases. It is
>>> possible to work around this, but it is unclear how much of a problem
>>> that's going to be in practice, so the workaround will be implemented
>>> later if it turns out to be necessary.
>>> Link:
>>> Reported-by: Varun Koyyalagunta <cpudebug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Original-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> I notice that it changes even i386, where it should not be
>> neccessary. But we probably should switch i386 to support similar to
>> x86-64 one day (and I have patches) so no problem there.
>> But I wonder if simpler solution is to place the mwait semaphore into
>> known address? (Nosave region comes to mind?)
> It might work, but it wouldn't be simpler.
> First off, we'd need to monitor a separate cache line for each CPU
> (see the message from Chen Yu) and it'd be a pain to guarantee that.
> Second, CPUs may be woken up from MWAIT for other reasons, so that
> needs to be taken into account too.
> In principle, we might set up a MONITOR?MWAIT "play dead" loop in a
> safe page and make the "dead" CPUs jump to it during image restore,
> but then the image kernel (after getting control back) would need to
> migrate them away from there again,

And this is not enough even, because we'd also need to ensure that the
non-boot CPUs would use "safe" page tables when restore_image() ran.