linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: core: Prevent sleep when rproc crashes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 11:00:00 -0700
From:   Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@...eaurora.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
        psodagud@...eaurora.org, rishabhb@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: core: Prevent sleep when rproc crashes

Hey Mathieu,
I will be sending a revised patchset soon. Will try to address your 
comments there.

Thanks,
Siddharth

On 2/24/2020 10:53 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Siddharth Gupta wrote:
>> Remoteproc recovery should be fast and any delay will have an impact on the
>> user-experience. Use power management APIs (pm_stay_awake and pm_relax) to
>> ensure that the system does not go to sleep.
> When you say "ensure the system does not go to sleep", you're referring to the
> system going idle from the CPUidle subsystem?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 4 ++++
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index 5ab65a4..52e318c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,8 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>   
>>   	if (!rproc->recovery_disabled)
>>   		rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc);
>> +
>> +	pm_relax(&rproc->dev);
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
>> @@ -2242,6 +2244,8 @@ void rproc_report_crash(struct rproc *rproc, enum rproc_crash_type type)
>>   		return;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	pm_stay_awake(&rproc->dev);
>> +
> I fail to understand how this can be useful since there is no HW associted to
> rproc->dev...  Is it possible for you to elaborate more on the problem you're
> trying to fix?
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>>   	dev_err(&rproc->dev, "crash detected in %s: type %s\n",
>>   		rproc->name, rproc_crash_to_string(type));
>>   
>> -- 
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project