Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions

[Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>]

Hi Doug,

On Thu, May 10 2018 at 16:37 -0600, Doug Anderson wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM,  <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-03 14:26, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +static struct rpmh_ctrlr rpmh_rsc[RPMH_MAX_CTRLR];
>>>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rpmh_rsc_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct rpmh_ctrlr *get_rpmh_ctrlr(const struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int i;
>>>> +       struct rsc_drv *p, *drv = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
>>>> +       struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>> +       unsigned long flags;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!drv)
>>>> +               return ctrlr;
>>>> +
>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < RPMH_MAX_CTRLR; i++) {
>>>> +               if (rpmh_rsc[i].drv == drv) {
>>>> +                       ctrlr = &rpmh_rsc[i];
>>>> +                       return ctrlr;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&rpmh_rsc_lock, flags);
>>>> +       list_for_each_entry(p, &rsc_drv_list, list) {
>>>> +               if (drv == p) {
>>>> +                       for (i = 0; i < RPMH_MAX_CTRLR; i++) {
>>>> +                               if (!rpmh_rsc[i].drv)
>>>> +                                       break;
>>>> +                       }
>>>> +                       if (i == RPMH_MAX_CTRLR) {
>>>> +                               ctrlr = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>> +                               break;
>>>> +                       }
>>>> +                       rpmh_rsc[i].drv = drv;
>>>> +                       ctrlr = &rpmh_rsc[i];
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +       }
>>>> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rpmh_rsc_lock, flags);
>>>
>>>
>>> I may have missed something, but to me it appears that this whole
>>> "rsc_drv_list" is pretty pointless.  I wrote up a patch atop your
>>> series to remove it at
>>>
>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/1042883/>
>>> and it simplifies the code a whole bunch.  From that patch, my
>>> justification was:
>>>
>>>> The global rsc_drv_list was (as far as I can tell) racy and not useful
>>>> for anything.
>>>>
>>>> I say it is racy because in general you need some sort of mutual
>>>> exclusion for lists.  If someone is adding to a list while someone
>>>> else is iterating over it then you get badness.
>>>>
>>>> I say it is not useful because the only user of it was
>>>> get_rpmh_ctrlr() and the only thing it did was to verify that the
>>>> "struct rsc_drv *" that it alrady had was in the list.  How could it
>>>> not be?
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that in v7 of your series you added a spinlock around your access
>>> of "rsc_drv_list", but this doesn't actually remove the race.
>>> Specifically I'm pretty sure that the list primitives don't support
>>> calling list_add() while someone might be iterating over the list and
>>> your spinlock isn't grabbed in rpmh_rsc_probe().
>>>
>>> Note that I also say in my patch:
>>>
>>>> NOTE: After this patch get_rpmh_ctrlr() still seems a bit fishy.  I'm
>>>> not sure why every caller would need its own private global cache of
>>>> stuff.  ...but I left that part alone.
>>>
>>>
>> I am not sure I understand this.
>
>As I've said I haven't reviewed RPMh in any amount of detail and so
>perhaps I don't understand something.
>
>OK, I dug a little more and coded up something for you.  Basically
>you're doing a whole bunch of iteration / extra work here to try to
>come up with a way to associate an extra bit of data with each "struct
>rsc_drv".  Rather than that, just add an extra field into "struct
>rsc_drv".  Problem solved.
>
>See http://crosreview.com/1054646 for what I mean.
>
I tried to avoid such pointer references and keep it object oriented
with this approach. I agree that we run through a list of 2 (at the max)
RSC to get the drv* from the rpmh_ctrlr. It is not going to be
expensive.

Another things this helps with is that, if the driver is not a child of
the RSC nodes in DT, then the drvdata of the parent would not a RSC node
and accessing that would result in a crash. This offers a cleaner exit
path for the error case.

>
>>> I'll try to dig into this more so I could just be confused, but in
>>> general it seems really odd to have a spinlock and something called a
>>> "cache" at this level.  If we need some sort of mutual exclusion or
>>> caching it seems like it should be stored in memory directly
>>> associated with the RPMh device, not some external global.
>>>
>> The idea behind the locking is not to avoid the race between rpmh.c and
>> rpmh-rsc.c. From the DT, the devices that are dependent on the RSCs are
>> probed following the probe of the controller. And init is not that we are
>> worried about.
>> The condition here is to prevent the rpmh_rsc[] from being modified
>> concurrently by drivers.
>
>OK, I see the point of the locking now, but not the list still.
>Sounds like Matthias agrees with me that the list isn't useful.  Seems
>like you should squash my patch at http://crosreview.com/1042883 into
>yours.
>
I saw your approach. I am okay with it for your tree, my approach comes
out of experiences in qcom platforms and how things tend to shape up in
the future. I would want you to consider my reasoning as well, before we
go forward.

Thanks,
Lina