Message-ID: <20220826013021.xrvhi3xrgyz2dkin@synopsys.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 01:30:38 +0000
From:   Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>
To:     Elson Serrao <quic_eserrao@...cinc.com>
CC:     Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        "balbi@...nel.org" <balbi@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "quic_wcheng@...cinc.com" <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>,
        "quic_jackp@...cinc.com" <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>,
        "quic_mrana@...cinc.com" <quic_mrana@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] usb: gadget: Add function wakeup support

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, Elson Serrao wrote:
> On 8/22/2022 6:01 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:17:24AM -0700, Elson Serrao wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 8/16/2022 4:51 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > On 8/16/2022, Elson Serrao wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 8/12/2022 5:46 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/11/2022, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2022, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 8/11/2022, Elson Serrao wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 8/9/2022 6:08 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > To summarize the points:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 1) The host only arms function remote wakeup if the device is
> > > > > > > > > > capable of
> > > > > > > > > > remote wakeup (check USB_CONFIG_ATT_WAKEUP in bmAttributes and
> > > > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > > capability)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 2) If the device is in suspend, the device can do remote wakeup
> > > > > > > > > > (through
> > > > > > > > > > LFPS handshake) if the function is armed for remote wakeup (through
> > > > > > > > > > SET_FEATURE(FUNC_SUSPEND)).
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 3) If the link transitions to U0 after the device triggering a remote
> > > > > > > > > > wakeup, the device will also send device notification function
> > > > > > > > > > wake for
> > > > > > > > > > all the interfaces armed with remote wakeup.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 4) If the device is not in suspend, the device can send device
> > > > > > > > > > notification function wake if it's in U0.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Now, remote wakeup and function wake device notification are 2
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > operations. We have the usb_gadget_ops->wakeup() for remote wakeup. I
> > > > > > > > > > suggested to maybe add
> > > > > > > > > > usb_gadget_ops->send_wakeup_notification(gadget,
> > > > > > > > > > intf_id) for the device notification. What you did was combining both
> > > > > > > > > > operations in usb_gadget_ops->func_wakeup(). That may only work for
> > > > > > > > > > point 4) (assuming you fix the U0 check), but not point 3).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback and summary. I will rename func_wakeup to
> > > > > > > > > send_wakeup_notification to better align with the approach. The
> > > > > > > > > reason I
> > > > > > > > > have combined remote_wakeup and function wake notification in
> > > > > > > > > usb_gadget_ops->func_wakeup() is because since the implementation
> > > > > > > > > is at
> > > > > > > > > function/composite level it has no knowledge on the link state. So I
> > > > > > > > > have delegated that task to controller driver to handle the
> > > > > > > > > notification
> > > > > > > > > accordingly. That is do a LFPS handshake first if the device is
> > > > > > > > > suspended and then send notification (explained below). But we can
> > > > > > > > > definitely separate this by adding an additional flag in the composite
> > > > > > > > > layer to set the link state based on the gadget suspend callback
> > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > when U3 SUSPEND interrupt is received. Let me know if you feel
> > > > > > > > > separating the two is a better approach.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The reason I think we need to separate it is because of point 3. As I
> > > > > > > > note earlier, the spec states that "If remote wake event occurs in
> > > > > > > > multiple functions, each function shall send a Function Wake
> > > > > > > > Notification."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But if there's no remote wake event, and the host brought the device up
> > > > > > > > instead, then the function suspend state is retained.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If we separate these 2 operations, the caller can check whether the
> > > > > > > > operation went through properly. For example, if the wakeup() is
> > > > > > > > initiated properly, but the function wake device notification didn't go
> > > > > > > > through. We would only need to resend the device notification rather
> > > > > > > > than initiate remote wakeup again.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If we don't have to send device notification for other interfaces, we
> > > > > > > can combine the operations here as you did.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I still think it's better to split up the operations. The way you're
> > > > > > handling it now is not clear.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the func_awake() returns -EAGAIN, I'd expect that the remote wake did
> > > > > > not go through and expect user to retry again. But here it does initiate
> > > > > > remote wake, but it just does not send device notification yet. This is
> > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also, instead of all the function wake handling coming from the function
> > > > > > driver, now we depend on the controller driver to call function resume()
> > > > > > on state change to U0, which will trigger device notification. What
> > > > > > happen if it doesn't call resume(). There's too many dependencies and it
> > > > > > seems fragile.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think all this can be handled in the function driver. You can fix the
> > > > > > dwc3 wakeup() and poll for U0/ON state rather than RECOVERY state, which
> > > > > > is what it's supposed to poll.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For transitioning from U3 to U0, the current upstream implementation is
> > > > > to poll for U0 state when dwc3_gadget_wakeup() is called and it is a
> > > > > blocking call. (this is a common API for both HS and SS)
> > > > > 
> > > > >       /* poll until Link State changes to ON */
> > > > >       retries = 20000;
> > > > > 
> > > > >       while (retries--) {
> > > > >           reg = dwc3_readl(dwc->regs, DWC3_DSTS);
> > > > > 
> > > > >           /* in HS, means ON */
> > > > >           if (DWC3_DSTS_USBLNKST(reg) == DWC3_LINK_STATE_U0)
> > > > >               break;
> > > > >       }
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my experiments I found that certain hosts take longer time to drive
> > > > > HS resume signalling between the remote wakeup and the resume K and this
> > > > > time varies across hosts. Hence the above polling timer is not generic
> > > > > across hosts. So how do we converge on a polling timer value to work
> > > > > across HS/SS and without blocking the system for a long time?
> > > > 
> > > > Can't we take the upper limit of both base on experiment? And it
> > > > shouldn't be blocking the whole system.
> > > 
> > > On the host I was experimenting with, the time it took was around 110ms in
> > > HS case. That would translate to a retry count of about ~181,000 in the
> > > above polling loop. Wouldn't that be a very large value for polling?
> > > And not sure if there are other hosts that take even longer time
> > 
> > We don't want to poll that many times. We shouldn't depend on the delay
> > of a register read for polling interval. Can't we just sleep in between
> > interval at a reasonable interval.
> > 
> 
> Sleeping is not an option as the upper layers (those beyond
> function/composite layer) may transmit data with a lock held.
> 

You can use mdelay() if it can't sleep. But if the wait is long, it
should be allowed to sleep.

> I ran into below BUG when remote wakeup was triggered via a ping() command
> and attempted sleep while polling
> 
> [   88.676789][  T392] BUG: scheduling while atomic
> [   88.900112][  T392] Call trace:
> <snip>
> [   88.912760][  T392]  __schedule_bug+0x90/0x188
> [   88.917335][  T392]  __schedule+0x714/0xb4c
> [   88.930568][  T392]  schedule+0x110/0x204
> [   88.943620][  T392]  schedule_timeout+0x94/0x134
> [   88.948371][  T392]  __dwc3_gadget_wakeup+0x1ac/0x558
> [   88.953558][  T392]  dwc3_gadget_wakeup+0x3c/0x8c
> [   88.958388][  T392]  usb_gadget_wakeup+0x54/0x1a8
> [   88.963222][  T392]  eth_start_xmit+0x130/0x830
> [   88.967876][  T392]  xmit_one+0xf0/0x364
> [   88.971913][  T392]  sch_direct_xmit+0x188/0x3e4
> [   88.976663][  T392]  __dev_xmit_skb+0x480/0x984
> [   88.981319][  T392]  __dev_queue_xmit+0x2d4/0x7d8
> [   88.986151][  T392]  neigh_resolve_output+0x208/0x2f0
> <snip>
> 
> The above experiment was done by removing spin_locks if any in the wakeup()
> path of  function/composite/controller drivers. It is running in atomic
> context due to the lock held by linux networking stack/generic packet
> scheduler.
> 
> So below are the only two approaches I can think of for dwc3_gadget_wakeup()
> API
> 
> 1.)Polling based approach: We poll until the link comes up. But cannot sleep
> while polling due to above reasons.
> 
> 2.)Interrupt based approach (the patches being discussed currently): When a
> remote wakeup is triggered enable link state interrupts and return right
> away. The function/composite drivers are later notified about the ON event
> via resume callback (in a similar way how we notify U3 to composite layer
> via suspend callback).
> 
> Please let me know if there is any alternate way that you can think of here.
> 

The main issue we're trying to solve is knowing if the host had woken up
and the device notification is sent so that the function driver can
resume().

If we can say that upon usb_gadget_wakeup() successful completion, the
link is in U0/ON, then the function driver can send the wake
notification after and resume(). That is, we're trying to make
usb_gadget_wakeup() synchronous. Whether it's polling or interrupt
based, it's implementation detail.

Unfortunately, the API isn't very clear whether usb_gadget_wakeup() may
sleep or synchronous.

Here are 3 approaches that we can have:

1) Clarify that usb_gadget_wakeup() is synchronous and the link will be
in U0/ON upon successful completion, and clarify whether it can sleep.
Introduce a separate API usb_gadget_send_wake_notification() to send
wake notification separately.

2) Create a new API usb_gadget_function_wakeup() that will combine both
device wakeup and wake notification. The function can sleep,
synchronous, and both wakeup and wake notification are done after the
function completes.

3) Create a new API usb_gadget_function_wakeup() that will combine both
device wakeup and wake notification. The function is asynchronous. We
won't know if the wakeup is successfully sent, but we don't care and
proceed with the function proceed with resume() anyway.

BR,
Thinh


> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some data layers like TCP/IP hold a TX lock while sending data (that
> > > > > causes a remote wakeup event) and hence this wakeup() may run in atomic
> > > > > context.
> > > > 
> > > > Why hold the lock while waiting for the host to wakeup? The host is
> > > > still inactive. Also, the usb_gadget_wakeup() API doesn't specify that
> > > > it may run in atomic context.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The lock might be held by upper layers who are unaware/independent of
> > > underlying transport medium. The above TX lock I was referring to was
> > > that held by Linux networking stack. It just pushes out data the same way it
> > > would when USB is active. It is the function/composite layer being aware of
> > > the function suspend would now sense this as a remote wake event and perform
> > > this additional step of bringing out the link from u3 and then sending
> > > device wakeup notification.
> > > 
> > > In our current upstream implementation of dwc3_gadget_wakeup() API we hold a
> > > spinlock as well. But yeah that can be rectified
> > 
> > Holding a spin_lock for this long is not reasonable. We only need to
> > lock when setting link recovery request but not while polling for DSTS
> > and waiting for the link to go up.
> > 
> > BR,
> > Thinh
> > 
> > > 
> > > static int dwc3_gadget_wakeup(struct usb_gadget *g)
> > > {
> > > 	struct dwc3		*dwc = gadget_to_dwc(g);
> > > 	unsigned long		flags;
> > > 	int			ret;
> > > 
> > > 	spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);
> > > 	ret = __dwc3_gadget_wakeup(dwc);
> > > 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
> > > 
> > > 	return ret;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > To make this generic across hosts, I had switched to interrupt based
> > > > > approach, enabling link state events and return error value immediately
> > > > > from the dwc3_gadget_wakeup() API after doing a LFPS handshake. But
> > > > > yeah, then we have to rely on the resume callback as an indication that
> > > > > link is transitioned to ON state.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > BR,
> > > > Thinh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists