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: <b19919ce-83f2-cb8e-7c85-3a24209f9a8c@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 08:54:14 +0800
From:   "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <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 v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash

On 9/17/2022 1:05 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> 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.
> 
Thx for follow up. I have new patchset posted on this thread.
After reconsideration, extra action can be done only for RPROC_OFFLINE 
state. Pls check the newest v4 patchset on this thread.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>>>               return;
>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thx and BRs,
>> Aiqun(Maria) Yu


-- 
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu