Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 18:53:49 +0800
From:   "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.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 v4] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when in RPROC_OFFLINE

Hi,

Let me think about this carefully.

When in RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL case we want to re-do the recovery process 
again or just leave the pm_relax?

recovery fail case 1:
|                                      |firstcrash interrupt issued
| second crashed interrupt issued      | rproc_report_crash()
| rproc_report_crash()                 |          pm_stay_awake()
|          pm_stay_awake()             |          queue_work()
|          queue_work()                |rproc_crash_handler_work()
|                                      |mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
|                                      |rproc_stop()
|rproc_crash_handler_work()            |rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
|                                      |RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL //new
|                                      |mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
|mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);             |pm_relax()
|if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)    |
|return // shouldn't do pm_relax if RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL?  |
|mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);           |
|                                      |
|                                      |
|                                      |

recovery fail case 2:
|                                      |firstcrash interrupt issued
|                                      | rproc_report_crash()
|                                      |          pm_stay_awake()
|                                      |          queue_work()
|                                      |rproc_crash_handler_work()
|                                      |mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
|                                      |rproc_stop()
|                                      |rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
|                                      |RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL //new
|                                      |mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
|                                      |pm_relax()
|
| second crashed interrupt issued      |
| rproc_report_crash()                 |
|          pm_stay_awake()             |
|          queue_work()                |
|pm_stay_awake()
|mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
|if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)    |
|return // still need do pm_relax if RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL?  |
|mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);           |
|                                      |
|                                      |
|                                      |

Maybe I can have:
1. the pm_stay_awake and pm_relax with count based and call with paired 
for fix current concurency issue.
2. RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL can be another patch for continue try to do 
recovery work.
3. handle RPROC_DETACHED case.

On 11/2/2022 4:11 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 09:31, Arnaud POULIQUEN
> <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/24/22 05:17, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2022 3:34 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 23:52, Aiqun(Maria) Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 2:03 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 11:34:42AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 09:40:09AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 4:43 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Please add what has changed from one version to another, either in a cover
>>>>>>>>> letter or after the "Signed-off-by".  There are many examples on how to
>>>>>>>>> do that
>>>>>>>>> on the mailing list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thx for the information, will take a note and benefit for next time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:12:31PM +0800, 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 held and
>>>>>>>>>> state is RPROC_CRASHED -> RPROC_OFFLINE -> RPROC_RUNNING,
>>>>>>>>>> and then unlock rproc->lock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are correct - because the lock is held rproc->state should be set to
>>>>>>>>> RPROC_RUNNING
>>>>>>>>> when rproc_trigger_recovery() returns.  If that is not the case then
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> went wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Function rproc_stop() sets rproc->state to RPROC_OFFLINE just before
>>>>>>>>> returning,
>>>>>>>>> so we know the remote processor was stopped.  Therefore if rproc->state
>>>>>>>>> is set
>>>>>>>>> to RPROC_OFFLINE something went wrong in either request_firmware() or
>>>>>>>>> rproc_start().  Either way the remote processor is offline and the system
>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>> in an unknown/unstable.  As such I don't see how calling pm_relax() can help
>>>>>>>>> things along.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PROC_OFFLINE is possible that rproc_shutdown is triggered and successfully
>>>>>>>> finished.
>>>>>>>> Even if it is multi crash rproc_crash_handler_work contention issue, and
>>>>>>>> last rproc_trigger_recovery bailed out with only
>>>>>>>> rproc->state==RPROC_OFFLINE, it is still worth to do pm_relax in pair.
>>>>>>>> Since the subsystem may still can be recovered with customer's next trigger
>>>>>>>> of rproc_start, and we can make each error out path clean with pm resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest spending time understanding what leads to the failure when
>>>>>>>>> recovering
>>>>>>>>> from a crash and address that problem(s).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In current case, the customer's information is that the issue happened when
>>>>>>>> rproc_shutdown is triggered at similar time. So not an issue from error out
>>>>>>>> of rproc_trigger_recovery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a very important element to consider and should have been mentioned
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the beginning.  What I see happening is the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rproc_report_crash()
>>>>>>>            pm_stay_awake()
>>>>>>>            queue_work() // current thread is suspended
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rproc_shutdown()
>>>>>>>            rproc_stop()
>>>>>>>                    rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rproc_crash_handler_work()
>>>>>>>            if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)
>>>>>>>                    return // pm_relax() is not called
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The right way to fix this is to add a pm_relax() in rproc_shutdown() and
>>>>>>> rproc_detach(), along with a very descriptive comment as to why it is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about this further there are more ramifications to consider.  Please
>>>>>> confirm the above scenario is what you are facing.  I will advise on how to
>>>>>> move
>>>>>> forward if that is the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if the situation is clear or not. So resend the email again.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above senario is what customer is facing. crash hanppened while at
>>>>> the same time shutdown is triggered.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately this is not enough details to address a problem as
>>>> complex as this one.
>>>>
>>>>> And the device cannto goes to suspend state after that.
>>>>> the subsystem can still be start normally after this.
>>>>
>>>> If the code flow I pasted above reflects the problem at hand, the
>>>> current patch will not be sufficient to address the issue.  If Arnaud
>>>> confirms my suspicions we will have to think about a better solution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mathiew,
>>>
>>> Could you pls have more details of any side effects other then power issue of
>>> the current senario?
>>> Why the current patch is not sufficient pls?
>>>
>>>
>>> Have the current senario in details with rproc->lock information in details:
>>>
>>> | subsystem crashed interrupt issued      | user trigger shutdown
>>> | rproc_report_crash()                    |
>>> |          pm_stay_awake()                |
>>> |          queue_work()                   |
>>> |                                         |rproc_shutdown
>>> |                                         |mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
>>> |                                         |rproc_stop()
>>> |rproc_crash_handler_work()               |rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
>>> |                                         |mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>>> |mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);                |
>>> |if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)       |
>>> |return // pm_relax() is not called       |rproc_boot
>>> |mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);              |
>>> |                                         |mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
>>> |                                         |rproc_start()
>>> |                                         |mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Agree with Mathieu, this is not so simple.
>>
> 
> Thanks for looking into this.
> 
>> Here is my view  hoping I haven't missed a point in your discussion or
>> an other corner cases.
>>
>> I tried to analyze the issues (in what follows, the term "condition" means
>> the "if" condition in which Aiqun proposes to add the fix) :
>>
>> I can see 4 use cases with race condition
>>
>> 1) crash report while already one is treated (rproc_boot_recovery called)
>>       => not a real use case as if the remote processor is crashed we
>>                should not have a second crash report
>>
> 
> That part is of great concern to me.  *Theoretically* we should not
> get a new crash report while one has already been dispatched but the
> current code accounts for this scenario and as such the possibility
> can't be dismissed.  Therefore we need to expect rproc_report_crash()
> to be called multiple times before a single instance of
> rproc_boot_recovery() is scheduled.


> 
>> 2) rproc_stop executed between the queuing of the crash work and the call of
>>    rproc_crash_handler_work
>>     => rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE
>>     => we enter in the "condition" and the pm_relax has to be called
>>     => This commit fix should solve this use case
>>
>> 3) rproc_detach executed between the queue of the crash work and the call of
>>    rproc_crash_handler_work
>>     => rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
>>     => we don't go in "the condition" and issue because the recovery reattach
>>        to the remote processor
>>     => but pm_relax is called
>>     => probably need an extra fix to avoid to re-attach
>>
>> 4) crash report while already one is treated (rproc_attach_recovery called)
>>     this one corresponds to an auto reboot of the remote processor, with a
>>     new crash
>>     => rproc->state = RPROC_CRASHED or rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
>>     4)a) rproc->state = RPROC_CRASHED if rproc->recovery_disabled = true
>>          => should call pm_relax if rproc->recovery_disabled = true
>>          => commit does not work for this use case
>>
>>     4)b) rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED if recovery fails
>>         => error case with an unstable state
>>         => how to differentiate it from the use case 3) ?
>>         => introduce a RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL state?
>>
> 
> The case where a recovery fails needs to be considered and is the
> reason the original patch doesn't work.  Right now in
> rproc_crash_handler_work(), it is not possible to differentiate
> between a legitimate shutdown request (scenario #2 above) and a
> recovery that went wrong.  I think introducing RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL
> would greatly simplify things.
> 
> My initial evaluation had not considered the attach/detach scenarios -
> thanks for adding that in the mix.
> 
> Aiqun, please send a new patchset that adds a new remote processor
> state, i.e RPROC_RECOVERY_FAIL.  There should also be another patch in
> that set that takes attach/detach scenarios into account.  The code
> between the v6.0 and v6.1 cycle has changed a lot in that area so make
> sure to properly rebase.
> 
I will try.

>>
>> Then pm_stay_awake is called when the crash work is queued.
>> It seems to me coherent to call the pm_relax in the work handler.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a quick and dirty patch (not tested) that should take into account the
>> main use cases ( except 1) and 4)b) )
>>
>> @@ -2009,8 +2009,18 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>
>>          mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
>>
>> -       if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
>> +       if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE ||
>> +           rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) {
>>                  /* handle only the first crash detected */
>> +
>> +               /*
>> +                * call pm-relax in following use cases:
>> +                * - the remote processor has been stopped by the user
>> +                * - the remote processor is detached
>> +                + - the remote proc has an autonomous reset but recovery_disabled is true.
>> +                */
>> +               if(rproc->state != RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->recovery_disabled)
>> +                       pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
>>                  mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>>                  return;
>>          }
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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..6bc7b8b7d01e 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 held and
>>>>>>>>>> +          * 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);
>>>>>>>>>>                     return;
>>>>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thx and BRs,
>>>>>>>> Aiqun(Maria) Yu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thx and BRs,
>>>>> Aiqun(Maria) Yu
>>>
>>>


-- 
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists