Message-ID: <543ee96699164a3cb95fe6a9aab54eae@SFHDAG5NODE3.st.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 07:43:37 +0000
From:   Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>
To:     "s-anna@...com" <s-anna@...com>
CC:     Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks

Hi Suman,

Could you please let us know your thoughts or comments?

BR

Fabien


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Sent: lundi 5 août 2019 19:47
> To: Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>
> Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>;
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>; Maxime Coquelin
> <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>; Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue@...com>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>; linux-
> remoteproc@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com; linux-arm-
> kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; Benjamin GAIGNARD
> <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks
> 
> On Mon 05 Aug 01:48 PDT 2019, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 01/08/2019 9:14 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Wed 13 Mar 08:50 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> > >
> > >> The current implementation does not allow two different devices to
> > >> use a common hwspinlock. This patch set proposes to have, as an
> > >> option, some hwspinlocks shared between several users.
> > >>
> > >> Below is an example that explain the need for this:
> > >> 	exti: interrupt-controller@...0d000 {
> > >> 		compatible = "st,stm32mp1-exti", "syscon";
> > >> 		interrupt-controller;
> > >> 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > >> 		reg = <0x5000d000 0x400>;
> > >> 		hwlocks = <&hsem 1>;
> > >> 	};
> > >> The two drivers (stm32mp1-exti and syscon) refer to the same hwlock.
> > >> With the current hwspinlock implementation, only the first driver
> > >> succeeds in requesting (hwspin_lock_request_specific) the hwlock.
> > >> The second request fails.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The proposed approach does not modify the API, but extends the DT
> 'hwlocks'
> > >> property with a second optional parameter (the first one identifies
> > >> an
> > >> hwlock) that specifies whether an hwlock is requested for exclusive
> > >> usage (current behavior) or can be shared between several users.
> > >> Examples:
> > >> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive usage
> > >> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8 0>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive (0) usage
> > >> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8 1>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for shared (1) usage
> > >>
> > >> As a constraint, the #hwlock-cells value must be 1 or 2.
> > >> In the current implementation, this can have theorically any value but:
> > >> - all of the exisiting drivers use the same value : 1.
> > >> - the framework supports only one value : 1 (see implementation of
> > >>    of_hwspin_lock_simple_xlate())
> > >> Hence, it shall not be a problem to restrict this value to 1 or 2
> > >> since it won't break any driver.
> > >>
> > > Hi Fabien,
> > >
> > > Your series looks good, but it makes me wonder why the hardware
> > > locks should be an exclusive resource.
> > >
> > > How about just making all (specific) locks shared?
> >
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > Making all locks shared is a possible implementation (my first
> > implementation was going this way) but there are some drawbacks we
> > must be aware of:
> >
> > A/ This theoretically break the legacy behavior (the legacy works with
> > exclusive (UNUSED radix tag) usage). As a consequence, an existing
> > driver that is currently failing to request a lock (already claimed by
> > another
> > user) would now work fine. Not sure that there are such drivers, so
> > this point is probably not a real issue.
> >
> 
> Right, it's possible that a previously misconfigured system now successfully
> probes more than one device that uses a particular spinlock. But such system
> would be suffering from issues related to e.g.
> probe ordering.
> 
> So I think we should ignore this issue.
> 
> > B/ This would introduce some inconsistency between the two 'request'
> > API which are hwspin_lock_request() and hwspin_lock_request_specific().
> > hwspin_lock_request() looks for an unused lock, so requests for an
> > exclusive usage. On the other side, request_specific() would request shared
> locks.
> > Worst the following sequence can transform an exclusive usage into a
> > shared
> >
> 
> There is already an inconsistency in between these; as with above any system
> that uses both request() and request_specific() will be suffering from intermittent
> failures due to probe ordering.
> 
> > one:
> >    -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#0 (exclusive)
> >    -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#1 (exclusive)
> >    -hwspin_lock_request_specific(0) -> returns Id#0 and makes Id#0
> > shared Honestly I am not sure that this is a real issue, but it's
> > better to have it in mind before we take ay decision
> 
> The case where I can see a
> problem with this would be if the two clients somehow would nest their locking
> regions.
> 
> But generally I think this could consider this an improvement, because the
> request_specific() would now be able to acquire its hwlock, with some additional
> contention due to the multiple use.
> 
> > I could not find any driver using the hwspin_lock_request() API, we
> > may decide to remove (or to make deprecated) this API, having
> > everything 'shared without any conditions'.
> >
> 
> It would be nice to have an upstream user of this API.
> 
> >
> > I can see three options:
> > 1- Keep my initial proposition
> > 2- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
> >     hwspin_lock_request() using unused (so 'initially' exclusive) locks.
> > 3- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
> >     remove/make deprecated hwspin_lock_request().
> >
> > Just let me know what is your preference.
> >
> 
> I think we should start with #2 and would like input from e.g. Suman regarding #3.
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
> > BR
> >
> > Fabien
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > >> Fabien Dessenne (6):
> > >>    dt-bindings: hwlock: add support of shared locks
> > >>    hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks
> > >>    dt-bindings: hwlock: update STM32 #hwlock-cells value
> > >>    ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwspinlock node for stm32mp157 SoC
> > >>    ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwlock for irqchip on stm32mp157
> > >>    ARM: dts: stm32: hwlocks for GPIO for stm32mp157
> > >>
> > >>   .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/hwlock.txt          | 27 +++++--
> > >>   .../bindings/hwlock/st,stm32-hwspinlock.txt        |  6 +-
> > >>   Documentation/hwspinlock.txt                       | 10 ++-
> > >>   arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157-pinctrl.dtsi          |  2 +
> > >>   arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi                 | 10 +++
> > >>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c               | 82 +++++++++++++++++-
> ----
> > >>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h           |  2 +
> > >>   7 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 2.7.4
> > >>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists