@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
#include <linux/relay.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/percpu-rwsem.h>
+#include <linux/cpuset.h>
#include <trace/events/power.h>
#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
@@ -919,6 +920,52 @@ void clear_tasks_mm_cpumask(int cpu)
rcu_read_unlock();
}
+/*
+ *
+ * Serialize hotplug trainwrecks outside of the cpu_hotplug_lock
+ * protected region.
+ *
+ * The operation is still serialized against concurrent CPU hotplug via
+ * cpu_add_remove_lock, i.e. CPU map protection. But it is _not_
+ * serialized against other hotplug related activity like adding or
+ * removing of state callbacks and state instances, which invoke either the
+ * startup or the teardown callback of the affected state.
+ *
+ * This is required for subsystems which are unfixable vs. CPU hotplug and
+ * evade lock inversion problems by scheduling work which has to be
+ * completed _before_ cpu_up()/_cpu_down() returns.
+ *
+ * Don't even think about adding anything to this for any new code or even
+ * drivers. It's only purpose is to keep existing lock order trainwrecks
+ * working.
+ *
+ * For cpu_down() there might be valid reasons to finish cleanups which are
+ * not required to be done under cpu_hotplug_lock, but that's a different
+ * story and would be not invoked via this.
+ */
+static void cpu_up_down_serialize_trainwrecks(bool tasks_frozen)
+{
+ /*
+ * cpusets delegate hotplug operations to a worker to "solve" the
+ * lock order problems. Wait for the worker, but only if tasks are
+ * _not_ frozen (suspend, hibernate) as that would wait forever.
+ *
+ * The wait is required because otherwise the hotplug operation
+ * returns with inconsistent state, which could even be observed in
+ * user space when a new CPU is brought up. The CPU plug uevent
+ * would be delivered and user space reacting on it would fail to
+ * move tasks to the newly plugged CPU up to the point where the
+ * work has finished because up to that point the newly plugged CPU
+ * is not assignable in cpusets/cgroups. On unplug that's not
+ * necessarily a visible issue, but it is still inconsistent state,
+ * which is the real problem which needs to be "fixed". This can't
+ * prevent the transient state between scheduling the work and
+ * returning from waiting for it.
+ */
+ if (!tasks_frozen)
+ cpuset_wait_for_hotplug();
+}
+
/* Take this CPU down. */
static int take_cpu_down(void *_param)
{
@@ -1108,6 +1155,7 @@ out:
*/
lockup_detector_cleanup();
arch_smt_update();
+ cpu_up_down_serialize_trainwrecks(tasks_frozen);
return ret;
}
@@ -1302,6 +1350,7 @@ static int _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen, enum cpuhp_state target)
out:
cpus_write_unlock();
arch_smt_update();
+ cpu_up_down_serialize_trainwrecks(tasks_frozen);
return ret;
}