All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: "dbasehore ." <dbasehore@chromium.org>
Cc: aisheng.dong@nxp.com, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	jbrunet@baylibre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare, enable}()
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 13:16:16 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <155190697673.20095.8507456124067904731@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGAzgsp0fWbH1f7gRKvhTotvdHMAL8gWw1bTKpVHfW9hJddXAw@mail.gmail.com>

Quoting dbasehore . (2019-03-05 20:11:57)
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:35 PM dbasehore . <dbasehore@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:49 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Derek Basehore (2019-03-04 20:49:31)
> > > > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > > >
> > > > Enabling and preparing clocks can be written quite naturally with
> > > > recursion. We start at some point in the tree and recurse up the
> > > > tree to find the oldest parent clk that needs to be enabled or
> > > > prepared. Then we enable/prepare and return to the caller, going
> > > > back to the clk we started at and enabling/preparing along the
> > > > way. This also unroll the recursion in unprepare,disable which can
> > > > just be done in the order of walking up the clk tree.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is recursion isn't great for kernel code where we
> > > > have a limited stack size. Furthermore, we may be calling this
> > > > code inside clk_set_rate() which also has recursion in it, so
> > > > we're really not looking good if we encounter a tall clk tree.
> > > >
> > > > Let's create a stack instead by looping over the parent chain and
> > > > collecting clks of interest. Then the enable/prepare becomes as
> > > > simple as iterating over that list and calling enable.
> > > >
> > > > Modified verison of https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/814369/
> > > > -Fixed kernel warning
> > > > -unrolled recursion in unprepare/disable too
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Derek Basehore <dbasehore@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > From the original post:
> > >
> > > "I have some vague fear that this may not work if a clk op is framework
> > > reentrant and attemps to call consumer clk APIs from within the clk ops.
> > > If the reentrant call tries to add a clk that's already in the list then
> > > we'll corrupt the list. Ugh."
> > >
> > > Do we have this sort of problem here? Or are you certain that we don't
> > > have clks that prepare or enable something that is already in the
> > > process of being prepared or enabled?
> >
> > I can look into whether anything's doing this and add a WARN_ON which
> > returns an error if we ever hit that case. If this is happening on
> > some platform, we'd want to correct that anyways.
> >
> 
> Also, if we're ever able to move to another locking scheme (hopefully
> soon...), we can make the prepare/enable locks non-reentrant. Then if
> anyone recursively calls back into the framework for another
> prepare/enable, they will deadlock. I guess that's one way of making
> sure no one does that.
> 

Sure, but we can't regress the system by making prepare and enable
non-reentrant. I was thinking we could write a Coccinelle script that
looks for suspects by matching against a clk_ops structure and then
picks out the prepare and enable ops from them and looks in those
functions for calls to clk_prepare_enable() or clk_prepare() or
clk_enable(). I don't know if or how it's possible to descend into the
call graph from the clk_ops function to check for clk API calls, so we
probably need to add the WARN_ON to help us find these issues at runtime
too.

You can use this cocci script to start poking at it though:

<smpl>
@ prepare_enabler @
identifier func;
identifier hw;
position p;
expression E;
@@
int func@p(struct clk_hw *hw)
{
...
(
clk_prepare_enable(E);
|
clk_prepare(E);
|
clk_enable(E);
)
...
}

@ has_preparer depends on prepare_enabler @
identifier ops;
identifier prepare_enabler.func;
position p;
@@
struct clk_ops ops = {
...,
.prepare = func@p,
...
};

@ has_enabler depends on prepare_enabler @
identifier ops;
identifier prepare_enabler.func;
position p;
@@
struct clk_ops ops = {
...,
.enable = func@p,
...
};

@script:python@
pf << prepare_enabler.p;
@@

coccilib.report.print_report(pf[0],"WARNING something bad called from clk op")

</smpl>

I ran it and found one hit in the davinci clk driver where the driver
manually turns a clk on to ensure a PLL locks. Hopefully that's a
different clk tree than the current one so that it's not an issue.

We already have quite a few grep hits for clk_prepare_enable() in
drivers/clk/ too but I think those are mostly drivers that haven't
converted to using critical clks so they have setup code to do that for
them. I suppose it would also be good to dig through all those drivers
and move them to the critical clk flag. For example, here's a patch for
the highbank driver that should definitely be moved to critical clks.

-----8<-----
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-highbank.c b/drivers/clk/clk-highbank.c
index 8e4581004695..bd328b0eb243 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-highbank.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-highbank.c
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
-#include <linux/clk.h>
 #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
@@ -272,7 +271,7 @@ static const struct clk_ops periclk_ops = {
 	.set_rate = clk_periclk_set_rate,
 };
 
-static __init struct clk *hb_clk_init(struct device_node *node, const struct clk_ops *ops)
+static void __init hb_clk_init(struct device_node *node, const struct clk_ops *ops, unsigned long clkflags)
 {
 	u32 reg;
 	struct hb_clk *hb_clk;
@@ -284,11 +283,11 @@ static __init struct clk *hb_clk_init(struct device_node *node, const struct clk
 
 	rc = of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &reg);
 	if (WARN_ON(rc))
-		return NULL;
+		return;
 
 	hb_clk = kzalloc(sizeof(*hb_clk), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (WARN_ON(!hb_clk))
-		return NULL;
+		return;
 
 	/* Map system registers */
 	srnp = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "calxeda,hb-sregs");
@@ -301,7 +300,7 @@ static __init struct clk *hb_clk_init(struct device_node *node, const struct clk
 
 	init.name = clk_name;
 	init.ops = ops;
-	init.flags = 0;
+	init.flags = clkflags;
 	parent_name = of_clk_get_parent_name(node, 0);
 	init.parent_names = &parent_name;
 	init.num_parents = 1;
@@ -311,33 +310,31 @@ static __init struct clk *hb_clk_init(struct device_node *node, const struct clk
 	rc = clk_hw_register(NULL, &hb_clk->hw);
 	if (WARN_ON(rc)) {
 		kfree(hb_clk);
-		return NULL;
+		return;
 	}
-	rc = of_clk_add_hw_provider(node, of_clk_hw_simple_get, &hb_clk->hw);
-	return hb_clk->hw.clk;
+	of_clk_add_hw_provider(node, of_clk_hw_simple_get, &hb_clk->hw);
 }
 
 static void __init hb_pll_init(struct device_node *node)
 {
-	hb_clk_init(node, &clk_pll_ops);
+	hb_clk_init(node, &clk_pll_ops, 0);
 }
 CLK_OF_DECLARE(hb_pll, "calxeda,hb-pll-clock", hb_pll_init);
 
 static void __init hb_a9periph_init(struct device_node *node)
 {
-	hb_clk_init(node, &a9periphclk_ops);
+	hb_clk_init(node, &a9periphclk_ops, 0);
 }
 CLK_OF_DECLARE(hb_a9periph, "calxeda,hb-a9periph-clock", hb_a9periph_init);
 
 static void __init hb_a9bus_init(struct device_node *node)
 {
-	struct clk *clk = hb_clk_init(node, &a9bclk_ops);
-	clk_prepare_enable(clk);
+	hb_clk_init(node, &a9bclk_ops, CLK_IS_CRITICAL);
 }
 CLK_OF_DECLARE(hb_a9bus, "calxeda,hb-a9bus-clock", hb_a9bus_init);
 
 static void __init hb_emmc_init(struct device_node *node)
 {
-	hb_clk_init(node, &periclk_ops);
+	hb_clk_init(node, &periclk_ops, 0);
 }
 CLK_OF_DECLARE(hb_emmc, "calxeda,hb-emmc-clock", hb_emmc_init);



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-03-06 21:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-05  4:49 [PATCH v2 0/6] Coordinated Clks Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49 ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare,enable}() Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05 18:49   ` Stephen Boyd
2019-03-05 18:49     ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare, enable}() Stephen Boyd
2019-03-05 18:49     ` Stephen Boyd
2019-03-06  1:35     ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare,enable}() dbasehore .
2019-03-06  1:35       ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare, enable}() dbasehore .
2019-03-06  4:11       ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare,enable}() dbasehore .
2019-03-06  4:11         ` [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare, enable}() dbasehore .
2019-03-06  4:11         ` dbasehore .
     [not found]         ` <CAGAzgsp0fWbH1f7gRKvhTotvdHMAL8gWw1bTKpVHfW9hJddXAw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2019-03-06 21:16           ` Stephen Boyd
2019-03-06 21:16         ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] clk: fix clk_calc_subtree compute duplications Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] clk: change rates via list iteration Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-09  0:07   ` dbasehore .
2019-03-09  0:07     ` dbasehore .
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] clk: add coordinated clk changes support Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] docs: driver-api: add pre_rate_req to clk documentation Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] clk: rockchip: use pre_rate_req for cpuclk Derek Basehore
2019-03-05  4:49   ` Derek Basehore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=155190697673.20095.8507456124067904731@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com \
    --to=sboyd@kernel.org \
    --cc=aisheng.dong@nxp.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dbasehore@chromium.org \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.