ACPI / processor: prevent cpu from becoming online
Even if acpi_processor_handle_eject() offlines cpu, there is a chance
to online the cpu after that. So the patch closes the window by using
get/put_online_cpus().
Why does the patch change _cpu_up() logic?
The patch cares the race of hot-remove cpu and _cpu_up(). If the patch
does not change it, there is the following race.
hot-remove cpu | _cpu_up()
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
call acpi_processor_handle_eject() |
call cpu_down() |
call get_online_cpus() |
| call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop here
call arch_unregister_cpu() |
call acpi_unmap_lsapic() |
call put_online_cpus() |
| start and continue _cpu_up()
return acpi_processor_remove() |
continue hot-remove the cpu |
So _cpu_up() can continue to itself. And hot-remove cpu can also continue
itself. If the patch changes _cpu_up() logic, the race disappears as below:
hot-remove cpu | _cpu_up()
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
call acpi_processor_handle_eject() |
call cpu_down() |
call get_online_cpus() |
| call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop here
call arch_unregister_cpu() |
call acpi_unmap_lsapic() |
cpu's cpu_present is set |
to false by set_cpu_present()|
call put_online_cpus() |
| start _cpu_up()
| check cpu_present() and return -EINVAL
return acpi_processor_remove() |
continue hot-remove the cpu |
Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
index bd4e5dc..a4352b8 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
@@ -852,8 +852,22 @@
if (cpu_online(pr->id))
cpu_down(pr->id);
+ get_online_cpus();
+ /*
+ * The cpu might become online again at this point. So we check whether
+ * the cpu has been onlined or not. If the cpu became online, it means
+ * that someone wants to use the cpu. So acpi_processor_handle_eject()
+ * returns -EAGAIN.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(cpu_online(pr->id))) {
+ put_online_cpus();
+ pr_warn("Failed to remove CPU %d, because other task "
+ "brought the CPU back online\n", pr->id);
+ return -EAGAIN;
+ }
arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
+ put_online_cpus();
return (0);
}
#else