linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when in RPROC

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]

Message-ID: <e46ea3ab-3202-bb3e-ebb6-a08444991ef0@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:34:05 +0800
From:   "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>, <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC:     <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <quic_clew@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when in RPROC_OFFLINE

On 9/15/2022 8:47 PM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 9/15/2022 3:34 PM, Maria Yu wrote:
>> RPROC_OFFLINE state indicate there is no recovery process
>> is in progress and no chance to do the pm_relax.
>> Because when recovering from crash, rproc->lock is hold and
> 
> s/hold/held ?
> 
Thanks.
>> state is RPROC_CRASHED -> RPROC_OFFLINE -> RPROC_RUNNING,
>> and then unlock rproc->lock.
>> When the state is in RPROC_OFFLINE it means separate request
>> of rproc_stop was done and no need to hold the wakeup source
>> in crash handler to recover any more.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c 
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index e5279ed9a8d7..247ced6b0655 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -1956,6 +1956,17 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct 
>> work_struct *work)
>>       if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == 
>> RPROC_OFFLINE) {
>>           /* handle only the first crash detected */
>>           mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>> +        /*
>> +         * RPROC_OFFLINE state indicate there is no recovery process
>> +         * is in progress and no chance to have pm_relax in place.
>> +         * Because when recovering from crash, rproc->lock is hold and
> 
> ..ditto..
> 
>> +         * state is RPROC_CRASHED -> RPROC_OFFLINE -> RPROC_RUNNING,
>> +         * and then unlock rproc->lock.
>> +         * RPROC_OFFLINE is only an intermediate state in recovery
>> +         * process.
>> +         */
>> +        if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)
>> +            pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> 
> 
> Looks good, apart from minor nit.
:)
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> 
> -Mukesh
>>           return;
>>       }


-- 
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu