forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
55f2503c3b
At present, "systemctl suspend" and "shutdown" can run in parrallel. A system can suspend after devices_shutdown(), and resume. Then the shutdown task goes on to power off. This causes many devices are not really shut off. Hence replacing reboot_mutex with system_transition_mutex (renamed from pm_mutex) to achieve the exclusion. The renaming of pm_mutex as system_transition_mutex can be better to reflect the purpose of the mutex. Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
232 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
232 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
Freezing of tasks
|
|
(C) 2007 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>, GPL
|
|
|
|
I. What is the freezing of tasks?
|
|
|
|
The freezing of tasks is a mechanism by which user space processes and some
|
|
kernel threads are controlled during hibernation or system-wide suspend (on some
|
|
architectures).
|
|
|
|
II. How does it work?
|
|
|
|
There are three per-task flags used for that, PF_NOFREEZE, PF_FROZEN
|
|
and PF_FREEZER_SKIP (the last one is auxiliary). The tasks that have
|
|
PF_NOFREEZE unset (all user space processes and some kernel threads) are
|
|
regarded as 'freezable' and treated in a special way before the system enters a
|
|
suspend state as well as before a hibernation image is created (in what follows
|
|
we only consider hibernation, but the description also applies to suspend).
|
|
|
|
Namely, as the first step of the hibernation procedure the function
|
|
freeze_processes() (defined in kernel/power/process.c) is called. A system-wide
|
|
variable system_freezing_cnt (as opposed to a per-task flag) is used to indicate
|
|
whether the system is to undergo a freezing operation. And freeze_processes()
|
|
sets this variable. After this, it executes try_to_freeze_tasks() that sends a
|
|
fake signal to all user space processes, and wakes up all the kernel threads.
|
|
All freezable tasks must react to that by calling try_to_freeze(), which
|
|
results in a call to __refrigerator() (defined in kernel/freezer.c), which sets
|
|
the task's PF_FROZEN flag, changes its state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and makes
|
|
it loop until PF_FROZEN is cleared for it. Then, we say that the task is
|
|
'frozen' and therefore the set of functions handling this mechanism is referred
|
|
to as 'the freezer' (these functions are defined in kernel/power/process.c,
|
|
kernel/freezer.c & include/linux/freezer.h). User space processes are generally
|
|
frozen before kernel threads.
|
|
|
|
__refrigerator() must not be called directly. Instead, use the
|
|
try_to_freeze() function (defined in include/linux/freezer.h), that checks
|
|
if the task is to be frozen and makes the task enter __refrigerator().
|
|
|
|
For user space processes try_to_freeze() is called automatically from the
|
|
signal-handling code, but the freezable kernel threads need to call it
|
|
explicitly in suitable places or use the wait_event_freezable() or
|
|
wait_event_freezable_timeout() macros (defined in include/linux/freezer.h)
|
|
that combine interruptible sleep with checking if the task is to be frozen and
|
|
calling try_to_freeze(). The main loop of a freezable kernel thread may look
|
|
like the following one:
|
|
|
|
set_freezable();
|
|
do {
|
|
hub_events();
|
|
wait_event_freezable(khubd_wait,
|
|
!list_empty(&hub_event_list) ||
|
|
kthread_should_stop());
|
|
} while (!kthread_should_stop() || !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
|
|
|
|
(from drivers/usb/core/hub.c::hub_thread()).
|
|
|
|
If a freezable kernel thread fails to call try_to_freeze() after the freezer has
|
|
initiated a freezing operation, the freezing of tasks will fail and the entire
|
|
hibernation operation will be cancelled. For this reason, freezable kernel
|
|
threads must call try_to_freeze() somewhere or use one of the
|
|
wait_event_freezable() and wait_event_freezable_timeout() macros.
|
|
|
|
After the system memory state has been restored from a hibernation image and
|
|
devices have been reinitialized, the function thaw_processes() is called in
|
|
order to clear the PF_FROZEN flag for each frozen task. Then, the tasks that
|
|
have been frozen leave __refrigerator() and continue running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rationale behind the functions dealing with freezing and thawing of tasks:
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
freeze_processes():
|
|
- freezes only userspace tasks
|
|
|
|
freeze_kernel_threads():
|
|
- freezes all tasks (including kernel threads) because we can't freeze
|
|
kernel threads without freezing userspace tasks
|
|
|
|
thaw_kernel_threads():
|
|
- thaws only kernel threads; this is particularly useful if we need to do
|
|
anything special in between thawing of kernel threads and thawing of
|
|
userspace tasks, or if we want to postpone the thawing of userspace tasks
|
|
|
|
thaw_processes():
|
|
- thaws all tasks (including kernel threads) because we can't thaw userspace
|
|
tasks without thawing kernel threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
III. Which kernel threads are freezable?
|
|
|
|
Kernel threads are not freezable by default. However, a kernel thread may clear
|
|
PF_NOFREEZE for itself by calling set_freezable() (the resetting of PF_NOFREEZE
|
|
directly is not allowed). From this point it is regarded as freezable
|
|
and must call try_to_freeze() in a suitable place.
|
|
|
|
IV. Why do we do that?
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking, there is a couple of reasons to use the freezing of tasks:
|
|
|
|
1. The principal reason is to prevent filesystems from being damaged after
|
|
hibernation. At the moment we have no simple means of checkpointing
|
|
filesystems, so if there are any modifications made to filesystem data and/or
|
|
metadata on disks, we cannot bring them back to the state from before the
|
|
modifications. At the same time each hibernation image contains some
|
|
filesystem-related information that must be consistent with the state of the
|
|
on-disk data and metadata after the system memory state has been restored from
|
|
the image (otherwise the filesystems will be damaged in a nasty way, usually
|
|
making them almost impossible to repair). We therefore freeze tasks that might
|
|
cause the on-disk filesystems' data and metadata to be modified after the
|
|
hibernation image has been created and before the system is finally powered off.
|
|
The majority of these are user space processes, but if any of the kernel threads
|
|
may cause something like this to happen, they have to be freezable.
|
|
|
|
2. Next, to create the hibernation image we need to free a sufficient amount of
|
|
memory (approximately 50% of available RAM) and we need to do that before
|
|
devices are deactivated, because we generally need them for swapping out. Then,
|
|
after the memory for the image has been freed, we don't want tasks to allocate
|
|
additional memory and we prevent them from doing that by freezing them earlier.
|
|
[Of course, this also means that device drivers should not allocate substantial
|
|
amounts of memory from their .suspend() callbacks before hibernation, but this
|
|
is a separate issue.]
|
|
|
|
3. The third reason is to prevent user space processes and some kernel threads
|
|
from interfering with the suspending and resuming of devices. A user space
|
|
process running on a second CPU while we are suspending devices may, for
|
|
example, be troublesome and without the freezing of tasks we would need some
|
|
safeguards against race conditions that might occur in such a case.
|
|
|
|
Although Linus Torvalds doesn't like the freezing of tasks, he said this in one
|
|
of the discussions on LKML (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/27/608):
|
|
|
|
"RJW:> Why we freeze tasks at all or why we freeze kernel threads?
|
|
|
|
Linus: In many ways, 'at all'.
|
|
|
|
I _do_ realize the IO request queue issues, and that we cannot actually do
|
|
s2ram with some devices in the middle of a DMA. So we want to be able to
|
|
avoid *that*, there's no question about that. And I suspect that stopping
|
|
user threads and then waiting for a sync is practically one of the easier
|
|
ways to do so.
|
|
|
|
So in practice, the 'at all' may become a 'why freeze kernel threads?' and
|
|
freezing user threads I don't find really objectionable."
|
|
|
|
Still, there are kernel threads that may want to be freezable. For example, if
|
|
a kernel thread that belongs to a device driver accesses the device directly, it
|
|
in principle needs to know when the device is suspended, so that it doesn't try
|
|
to access it at that time. However, if the kernel thread is freezable, it will
|
|
be frozen before the driver's .suspend() callback is executed and it will be
|
|
thawed after the driver's .resume() callback has run, so it won't be accessing
|
|
the device while it's suspended.
|
|
|
|
4. Another reason for freezing tasks is to prevent user space processes from
|
|
realizing that hibernation (or suspend) operation takes place. Ideally, user
|
|
space processes should not notice that such a system-wide operation has occurred
|
|
and should continue running without any problems after the restore (or resume
|
|
from suspend). Unfortunately, in the most general case this is quite difficult
|
|
to achieve without the freezing of tasks. Consider, for example, a process
|
|
that depends on all CPUs being online while it's running. Since we need to
|
|
disable nonboot CPUs during the hibernation, if this process is not frozen, it
|
|
may notice that the number of CPUs has changed and may start to work incorrectly
|
|
because of that.
|
|
|
|
V. Are there any problems related to the freezing of tasks?
|
|
|
|
Yes, there are.
|
|
|
|
First of all, the freezing of kernel threads may be tricky if they depend one
|
|
on another. For example, if kernel thread A waits for a completion (in the
|
|
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state) that needs to be done by freezable kernel thread B
|
|
and B is frozen in the meantime, then A will be blocked until B is thawed, which
|
|
may be undesirable. That's why kernel threads are not freezable by default.
|
|
|
|
Second, there are the following two problems related to the freezing of user
|
|
space processes:
|
|
1. Putting processes into an uninterruptible sleep distorts the load average.
|
|
2. Now that we have FUSE, plus the framework for doing device drivers in
|
|
userspace, it gets even more complicated because some userspace processes are
|
|
now doing the sorts of things that kernel threads do
|
|
(https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2007-May/012309.html).
|
|
|
|
The problem 1. seems to be fixable, although it hasn't been fixed so far. The
|
|
other one is more serious, but it seems that we can work around it by using
|
|
hibernation (and suspend) notifiers (in that case, though, we won't be able to
|
|
avoid the realization by the user space processes that the hibernation is taking
|
|
place).
|
|
|
|
There are also problems that the freezing of tasks tends to expose, although
|
|
they are not directly related to it. For example, if request_firmware() is
|
|
called from a device driver's .resume() routine, it will timeout and eventually
|
|
fail, because the user land process that should respond to the request is frozen
|
|
at this point. So, seemingly, the failure is due to the freezing of tasks.
|
|
Suppose, however, that the firmware file is located on a filesystem accessible
|
|
only through another device that hasn't been resumed yet. In that case,
|
|
request_firmware() will fail regardless of whether or not the freezing of tasks
|
|
is used. Consequently, the problem is not really related to the freezing of
|
|
tasks, since it generally exists anyway.
|
|
|
|
A driver must have all firmwares it may need in RAM before suspend() is called.
|
|
If keeping them is not practical, for example due to their size, they must be
|
|
requested early enough using the suspend notifier API described in
|
|
Documentation/driver-api/pm/notifiers.rst.
|
|
|
|
VI. Are there any precautions to be taken to prevent freezing failures?
|
|
|
|
Yes, there are.
|
|
|
|
First of all, grabbing the 'system_transition_mutex' lock to mutually exclude a piece of code
|
|
from system-wide sleep such as suspend/hibernation is not encouraged.
|
|
If possible, that piece of code must instead hook onto the suspend/hibernation
|
|
notifiers to achieve mutual exclusion. Look at the CPU-Hotplug code
|
|
(kernel/cpu.c) for an example.
|
|
|
|
However, if that is not feasible, and grabbing 'system_transition_mutex' is deemed necessary,
|
|
it is strongly discouraged to directly call mutex_[un]lock(&system_transition_mutex) since
|
|
that could lead to freezing failures, because if the suspend/hibernate code
|
|
successfully acquired the 'system_transition_mutex' lock, and hence that other entity failed
|
|
to acquire the lock, then that task would get blocked in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
|
|
state. As a consequence, the freezer would not be able to freeze that task,
|
|
leading to freezing failure.
|
|
|
|
However, the [un]lock_system_sleep() APIs are safe to use in this scenario,
|
|
since they ask the freezer to skip freezing this task, since it is anyway
|
|
"frozen enough" as it is blocked on 'system_transition_mutex', which will be released
|
|
only after the entire suspend/hibernation sequence is complete.
|
|
So, to summarize, use [un]lock_system_sleep() instead of directly using
|
|
mutex_[un]lock(&system_transition_mutex). That would prevent freezing failures.
|
|
|
|
V. Miscellaneous
|
|
/sys/power/pm_freeze_timeout controls how long it will cost at most to freeze
|
|
all user space processes or all freezable kernel threads, in unit of millisecond.
|
|
The default value is 20000, with range of unsigned integer.
|