Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1321295
| From | Keerthy <a0393675@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function |
| Date | 2016-01-29 02:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qW6mf-3JJ-57@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qVUuJ-3R3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qVUO5-3Yo-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Alan, On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:54 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:36:27 +0530 > Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote: > >> The series introduces a new function emergency_poweroff which shuts >> down the system after a configurable period of time. emergency_poweroff >> is appropriate in case of thermal shutdown scenario. > > That depends upon the system. > > If your hardware has its own built in thermal reset protection then it > will merely make things worse by causing unneeded crashes. > > If your device doesn't have protection then you have bigger problems > because a kernel crash or spin in interrupt space could easily mean that > the thermal thermals but doesn't ever run any delayed work. On those that > have a watchdog as well it should be using the hardware watchdog for > protection not relying upon schedule_delayed_work to get work done. > > So IMHO this should get a resounding NAK as it stands. For most systems > it's a backward change, for most of those that need more protection it > doesn't look the right answer. > > In particular if you need to be sure the box goes off *right now* you > don't want to schedule work because there are so many ways that it might > never execute the work when the box is failing. Scheduling work was done to give a configurable delay before powering off. I get your point that it might never get scheduled when things go wrong. > > Do your devices actually *really* need this, are you saying that someone > who roots the device can disable this code and physically destroy the > product ? If they do then I'd much rather see thermal_core call > thermal_poweroff(), and define that on a platform basis - so for x86 it > would be orderly_poweroff(), for your platform it might well be a > function that right that instant bangs the registers to force power off, > devices with watchdogs might write the watchdog with a 5 second timer and > then try and do an orderly_poweroff and so forth. Thanks for the feedback. I apologize for Ccing the wrong list. I removed it from the thread. Regards, Keerthy > > Alan >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2016-01-28 14:10 +0100
[PATCH 1/2] reboot: Introduce emergency poweroff function Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2016-01-28 14:10 +0100
[PATCH 2/2] thermal: Use emergency_poweroff instead of orderly_poweroff for shutdown scenario Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2016-01-28 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2016-01-28 14:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 0/2] reboot: Introduce emergency_poweroff function Keerthy <a0393675@ti.com> - 2016-01-29 02:50 +0100
csiph-web