linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] opp: Keep track of currently programmed OPP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210712041408.5dgtwcp55pgt7twn@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:44:08 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...ilicon.com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        zhongkaihua@...wei.com, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] opp: Keep track of currently programmed OPP

On 09-07-21, 09:57, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> On Thursday 08 Jul 2021 at 13:23:53 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 07-07-21, 11:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > > Now comes the interesting part: what seems to fix it is a call to
> > > clk_get_rate(opp_table->clk) in _set_opp(), which is what basically
> > > happened before this patch, as _find_current_opp() was always called.
> > > I do not need to do anything with the returned frequency.
> > 
> > Wow, thanks for narrowing it down this far :)
> > 
> > I had a quick look and this is what I think is the problem here.
> > 
> > This platform uses mailbox API to send its frequency change requests to another
> > processor.  And the way it is written currently, I don't see any guarantee
> > whatsoever which say
> > 
> >   "once clk_set_rate() returns, the frequency would have already changed".
> > 
> 
> I think what was strange to me was that the frequency never seems to
> change, there isn't just a delay in the new frequency taking effect, as
> I would expect in these cases. Or if there is a delay, that's quite large
> - at least a second.

No idea on what the firmware is doing behind the scene :)

> > And this may exactly be the thing you are able to hit, luckily because of this
> > patchset :)
> > 
> > As a quick way of checking if that is right or not, this may make it work:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/hi3660-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/hi3660-mailbox.c
> > index 395ddc250828..9856c1c84dcf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/hi3660-mailbox.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/hi3660-mailbox.c
> > @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ static int hi3660_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *msg)
> > 
> >         /* Trigger data transferring */
> >         writel(BIT(mchan->ack_irq), base + MBOX_SEND_REG);
> > +
> > +       hi3660_mbox_check_state(chan);
> > +
> 
> I gave this a try an it does work for me.

Good, so that kind of proves what I was suspecting. The mailbox driver looks
buggy here.

> > -------------------------8<-------------------------
> > 
> > As a proper fix, something like this (not even compile tested) is required I
> > believe as I don't see the clients would know if the transfer is over. Cc'ing
> > mailbox guys to see what can be done.
> > 
> 
> I'll give this a try as well when there is consensus. I might even try to
> review it, if the time allows.

Sure, lets see what the platform guys think about this first.

Kevin, Kaihua ?

-- 
viresh