| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:00:55 -0700
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
Cc: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>,
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
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:18:28AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> On 11/26/2022 2:37 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:52:46AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 09:30:58AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 11/15/2022 5:18 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:52:11AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> > > > > > On 11/11/2022 4:50 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > > > > I had a couple of good discussions with our power management expert
> > > > > > > and even then, the way forward isn't as clear as I would have liked.
> > > > > > > I am currently travelling and as such don't have the required time to
> > > > > > > go into greater details, something I will be doing next week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Thx Mathieu for the info updated.
> > > > > > I'll wait for your update next week then.
> > > > > > let me know any initial questions that you have, perhaps I can also discuss
> > > > > > that with our power team at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is to determine exactly what the WQ_FREEZABLE flag does to the
> > > > > rproc_recovery_wq workueue. The documentation [1] indicate that work items on the WQ are
> > > > > drained before the system is suspended. What I understand from this is that if
> > > > > two work items are queued and one is executing at the time a system suspend is
> > > > > initiated, all three items will be executed before the system is allowed to be
> > > > > suspended. _If_ that is the case, there would not be a need to call
> > > > > pm_stay_awake() and pm_relax() at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, the PM resource I spoke to thought that in reality things
> > > > > don't happen that way. Taking the same above scenario where 2 work items are
> > > > > queued and one is executing at the time of the suspend, only the work item that
> > > > > is executing will be allowed to execute to completion before the system is
> > > > > suspended. The remaining two items that were queued will not execute.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the case then we do need to call pm_stay_awake() and pm_relax(), and
> > > > > find another strategy to fix this situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Until we have a clear view of how the WQ_FREEZABLE flag works, we won't be able
> > > > > to move forward with this patchset. Unfortunately, I currently do not have the
> > > > > time to look into this.
> > > > I had a check on the WQ_FREEZABLE flag, here is my understanding:
> > > >
> > > > when the interrupt happened, it still need pm_stay_awake to make sure
> > > > queue_work action can active the work instead of susepend the device.
> > > >
> > > > 1. If WQ_FREEZABLE, pwq->max_active = 0; // maximum number of in-flight
> > > > work items is set to 0.
> > > >
> > > > [1].
> > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L3748
> > > >
> > > > 2. If WQ_FREEZABLE, will only check pwq->nr_active to see if there is still
> > > > freeze_workqueues_busy.
> > > > [2].
> > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L5270
> > > >
> > > > 3. When in queue_work, if max_active is 0, when do queue_work it will not
> > > > actually active the work.
> > > > [3].
> > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L1418
> > > >
> > > > for the current issue, the work is already complete and forget to set
> > > > pm_relax in some condition that make the system cannot be suspended.
> > >
> > > What you have above does not describe what happens to work already queue to a
> > > WQ_FREEZABLE workqueue when the system gets suspended, and that is the most
> > > important thing.
> > >
> > > I ended up doing that investigation myself and found the documentation on
> > > WQ_FREEZABLE seems to be accurate. I am still discussing this with the Linaro
> > > power management team and will get back to you when we reach a conclusion.
> > >
> >
> > I finally have time to get back to this problem...
> >
> > As I reported above I went down to the bottom of how WQ_FREEZABLE workqueues
> > work. The conclusion of that research is that _any_ work, queued or currently
> > executing, will finish before the system is suspended. As such, as soon as
> > queue_work() returns in rproc_report_crash(), you can be guaranteed what was
> > just queued will be executed. Therefore, calling pm_stay_awake() in
> > rproc_report_crash() and pm_relax() in rproc_crash_handler_work() should not be
> > needed because the system will not suspend for as long as there is work to be
> > done by the freezable worqueues.
> >
> The problem is when crash interrupt happened in a later point(after
> freeze_kernel_thread), the queue_work will result with the state of
> WORK_STRUCT_INACTIVE and insert to inactive_works.
> And this is the senario that pm_stay_awake wanted to address inside the
> interrupt handler call.
>
> refer to:
> [1]
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L1512
>
> the current suspend simple flow can be:
>
> +-+-------------------+
> | freeze_processes |
> +----------+----------+
> |
> |
> +-----------|-----------+
> | freeze_kernel_thread |
> +-----------+-----------+
> |
> +-+--------|----------+
> | device_suspend |
> +----------|----------+
> |
> |
> +-----------+-----------+
> | pm_wakeup_pending |
> +-----------|-----------+
> |
> |
> +-----------------+-------------------+
> | suspend_ops->enter (machine suspend)|
> +-------------------------------------+
>
>
> refer to:
> suspend_prepare -> suspend_freeze_processes -->freeze_processes and
> freeze_kernel_threads
>
>
>
> refer to:
>
> suspend_devices_and_enter -->
> dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_suspend --> device_suspend --> device suspend
> callbacks
> suspend_enter -->dpm_suspend_late-->device_suspend_late
>
> [2]
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/kernel/power/suspend.c#L582
>
> > I don't have details on what Rishabh - the author of the patch that added the
> > calls - was facing but based on the my understanding of freezable workqueues, it
> > seem to have been the wrong solution.
> In my opinion, the freezable workqueues are in the right solution. It only
> protect for the system freeze state.
> While if we want the crash interrupt to be handled to prevent current
> suspend process, it still need to deal with other suspend state to machin
> suspend senarios.
> Typical example can be before disable the device interrupt in device suspend
> callbacks, it will flush the necessary workqueues.
>
> while in our case, since the crash handler will invoke a subsystem restart
> process which reply on user thread uevent firmware loaders, so it need to
> abort the suspend process with pm_stay_awake called.
>
> So in a word, pm_stay_awake is necessary per my understanding.
>
I see your point - thanks for being perseverant. What is important to
understand is that pm_stay_awake() can stop and reverse the suspend process that
is currently underway.
With the code you had for V4 in mind, I suggest to modify
rproc_crash_handler_work() to be:
...
...
...
if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED) {
/* handle only the first crash detected */
mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
return;
}
if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
/* The remote processor is offline, no need to recover anything */
mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
goto out;
}
...
...
...
out:
pm_relax();
Do you think that will work for you?
> >
> > Until we have a clear vision on what Rishabh was trying to fix, nothing in that
> > area will be changing. I suggest you touch base with him and sort it out. If
> > that is not possible then calls to pm_stay_awake() and pm_relax() should be
> > removed.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to take on this investigation, keep in mind that any conclusion will
> > > > > need to be backed by a proof. That can be debug messages on a console output or
> > > > > a code reference in the workqueue core.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst#L184
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 at 18:14, Aiqun(Maria) Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > On 11/4/2022 11:59 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:03:49AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 11/3/2022 2:03 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:53:49PM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Neither.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When a recovery fail we don't want to call pm_relax(). The code in
> > > > > > > > > > > rproc_crash_handler_work() becomes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
> > > > > > > > > > > /* We have raced with rproc_shutdown() */
> > > > > > > > > > > pm_relax()
> > > > > > > > > > > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > > > > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED ||
> > > > > > > > > > > rproc->state == RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED) {
> > > > > > > > > > > /* handle only the first crash detected */
> > > > > > > > > > > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > > > > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED gets set in rproc_boot_recovery() if request_firmware() or
> > > > > > > > > > > rproc_start() fail. Function rproc_trigger_recovery() needs to allow for the
> > > > > > > > > > > recovery the the remote processor is in RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED state. As such
> > > > > > > > > > > the condition becomes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > /* State could have changed before we got the mutex */
> > > > > > > > > > > if (rproc->state != RPROC_CRASHED &&
> > > > > > > > > > > rproc->state != RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED)
> > > > > > > > > > > goto unlock_mutex;
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Start with that and we can look at corner cases (if some exists) with a fresh
> > > > > > > > > > > patchset. Note that I have not addressed the attach/detach() scenario in the
> > > > > > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we didn't deal with the recovery failed case with correct pm_relax call,
> > > > > > > > > > it may left the device in a state that cannot enter to suspend state.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is what I am looking for. We don't want to give the impression that
> > > > > > > > > everything is fine by allowing the device to suspend. If the remote processor
> > > > > > > > > can't be recovered than it needs to be dealth with.
> > > > > > > > For the normal recovery failed case, it still need to do pm_relax to not
> > > > > > > > prevent the device goes to suspend. It is what in normal recovery failed
> > > > > > > > case we do in rproc_crash_handler_work as well.
> > > > > > > > rproc_crash_handler_work will not check the result of the
> > > > > > > > rproc_trigger_recovery return value, and will always do pm_relax.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For current conconrency cornor case as well, it is better to consistant
> > > > > > > > with the current design of recovery fail senarios in normal cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I personally agree that we shouldn't do nothing when it is a
> > > > > > > > RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED senario when it is in rproc_crash_handler_work
> > > > > > > > check, because it maybe crash happened when it is trying to do the recovery.
> > > > > > > > So I suggested to do a continue try of trigger recovery again instead of
> > > > > > > > doing nothing and bail out if it is a RPROC_RECOVERY_FAILED state.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Because first PROC_RECOVERY_FAIL case cannot ensure it have pm_relax called
> > > > > > > > > > before the second crash handler call pm_stay_awake or not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been thinking about that part. I don't think adding a wake_count to
> > > > > > > > > control calls to pm_stay_awake()/pm_relax() is the best way to go. There is a
> > > > > > > > > similar count happening in the PM runtime subsystem and that is what we should
> > > > > > > > > be using. I have asked a power management expert at Linaro for guidance with
> > > > > > > > > this matter. I should be able to get back to you with a way forward by the end
> > > > > > > > > of next week.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thx for the specific date provided as well. I will wait until your reply
> > > > > > > > for next patchset then.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, What about the atomic count along with pm_relax and pm_stay_awake ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > struct rproc{
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > atomic_t wake_count;
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_pm_stay_awake()
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > atomic_inc(&wake_count);
> > > > > > > > > > pm_stay_awake();
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_pm_relax()
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > if (atomic_dec_return(&wake_count) == 0)
> > > > > > > > > > pm_stay_awake();
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > can refer code like:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_report_crash()
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_pm_stay_awake();
> > > > > > > > > > queue_work();
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_crash_handler_work()
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE || rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED) {
> > > > > > > > > > /* We have raced with rproc_shutdown() */
> > > > > > > > > > rproc_pm_relax();
> > > > > > > > > > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > > > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Mathieu
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Thx and BRs,
> > > > > > > > > > Aiqun(Maria) Yu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thx and BRs,
> > > > > > > > Aiqun(Maria) Yu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thx and BRs,
> > > > > > Aiqun(Maria) Yu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thx and BRs,
> > > > Aiqun(Maria) Yu
>
>
> --
> Thx and BRs,
> Aiqun(Maria) Yu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists