linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash

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: <CANLsYkx0fEyezax_bk50ORGb7vPY3sBegKJcfAmmu366MrQkYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:05:48 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
Cc:     linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_clew@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash

On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 05:03, Aiqun(Maria) Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> pm_awake and pm_relax needed to be used as a pair. There is chance that
> pm_relax is not being called, and make the device always in cannot
> suspend state.
>
> On 9/10/2022 3:23 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> >> Even if it is not first crash, need to relax the pm
> >> wakelock otherwise the device will stay awake.
> >>
> >
> > The goal is exactly to keep the device awake...
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index e5279ed9a8d7..30078043e939 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1956,6 +1956,7 @@ 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);
> >> +            pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> >
> > If we are here it means that rproc_crash_handler_work() has already been called
> > _and_ that a recovery is in process.  When the first crash handler completes
> > pm_relax() will be called and the device will go to sleep as expected.
> If the rproc->state cannot be changed to running state, the device will
> always be awake from this return.
> Also APROC_OFFLINE state can be given in other path like an shutdown
> request is issued.
>
> While this patch is not considering carefully as well, I think I need to
> upload a new patchset with an ordered workqueue to make each work have
> each pm_relax before return.
> what do you think?

I was travelling this week and as such did not have the time to
follow-up with this thread, something I will do next week.

>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >>              return;
> >>      }
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
>
>
> --
> Thx and BRs,
> Aiqun(Maria) Yu