From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> To: rishabhb@codeaurora.org Cc: sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avajid@codeaurora.org, adharmap@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] firmware: arm_scmi: Free mailbox channels if probe fails Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 06:48:35 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210831054835.GJ13160@e120937-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <51782599a01a6a22409d01e5fc1f8a50@codeaurora.org> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:09:37PM -0700, rishabhb@codeaurora.org wrote: > Hi Christian Hi Rishabh, thanks for looking into this kind of bad interactions. > There seems to be another issue here. The response from agent can be delayed > causing a timeout during base protocol acquire, > which leads to the probe failure. What I have observed is sometimes the > failure of probe and rx_callback (due to a delayed message) > happens at the same time on different cpus. > Because of this race, the device memory may be cleared while the > interrupt(rx_callback) is executing on another cpu. You are right that concurrency was not handled properly in this kind of context and moreover, if you think about it, even the case of out of order reception of responses and delayed_responses (type2 SCMI messages) for asynchronous SCMI commands was not handled properly. > How do you propose we solve this? Do you think it is better to take the > setting up of base and other protocols out of probe and > in some delayed work? That would imply the device memory is not released > until remove is called. Or should we add locking to > the interrupt handler(scmi_rx_callback) and the cleanup in probe to avoid > the race? > These issues were more easily exposed by SCMI Virtio transport, so in the series where I introduced scmi-virtio: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/162848483974.232214.9506203742448269364.b4-ty@arm.com/ (which is now queued for v5.15 ... now on -next I think...finger crossed) I took the chance to rectify a couple of other things in the SCMI core in the initial commits. As an example, in the above series [PATCH v7 05/15] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and out-of-order messages cares to add a refcount to xfers and some locking on xfers between TX and RX path to avoid that a timed out xfer can vanish while the rx path is concurrently working on it (as you said); moreover I handle the condition (rare if not unplausible anyway) in which a transport delivers out of order responses and delayed responses. I tested this scenarios on some fake emulated SCMI Virtio transport where I could play any sort of mess and tricks to stress this limit conditions, but you're more than welcome to verify if the race you are seeing on Base protocol time out is solved (as I would hope :D) by this series of mine. Let me know, any feedback is welcome. Btw, in the series above there are also other minor changes, but there is also another more radical change needed to ensure correctness and protection against stale old messages which maybe could interest you in general if you are looking into SCMI: [PATCH v7 04/15] firmware: arm_scmi: Introduce monotonically increasing tokens Let me know if yo have other concerns. Thanks Cristian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> To: rishabhb@codeaurora.org Cc: sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avajid@codeaurora.org, adharmap@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] firmware: arm_scmi: Free mailbox channels if probe fails Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 06:48:35 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210831054835.GJ13160@e120937-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <51782599a01a6a22409d01e5fc1f8a50@codeaurora.org> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:09:37PM -0700, rishabhb@codeaurora.org wrote: > Hi Christian Hi Rishabh, thanks for looking into this kind of bad interactions. > There seems to be another issue here. The response from agent can be delayed > causing a timeout during base protocol acquire, > which leads to the probe failure. What I have observed is sometimes the > failure of probe and rx_callback (due to a delayed message) > happens at the same time on different cpus. > Because of this race, the device memory may be cleared while the > interrupt(rx_callback) is executing on another cpu. You are right that concurrency was not handled properly in this kind of context and moreover, if you think about it, even the case of out of order reception of responses and delayed_responses (type2 SCMI messages) for asynchronous SCMI commands was not handled properly. > How do you propose we solve this? Do you think it is better to take the > setting up of base and other protocols out of probe and > in some delayed work? That would imply the device memory is not released > until remove is called. Or should we add locking to > the interrupt handler(scmi_rx_callback) and the cleanup in probe to avoid > the race? > These issues were more easily exposed by SCMI Virtio transport, so in the series where I introduced scmi-virtio: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/162848483974.232214.9506203742448269364.b4-ty@arm.com/ (which is now queued for v5.15 ... now on -next I think...finger crossed) I took the chance to rectify a couple of other things in the SCMI core in the initial commits. As an example, in the above series [PATCH v7 05/15] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and out-of-order messages cares to add a refcount to xfers and some locking on xfers between TX and RX path to avoid that a timed out xfer can vanish while the rx path is concurrently working on it (as you said); moreover I handle the condition (rare if not unplausible anyway) in which a transport delivers out of order responses and delayed responses. I tested this scenarios on some fake emulated SCMI Virtio transport where I could play any sort of mess and tricks to stress this limit conditions, but you're more than welcome to verify if the race you are seeing on Base protocol time out is solved (as I would hope :D) by this series of mine. Let me know, any feedback is welcome. Btw, in the series above there are also other minor changes, but there is also another more radical change needed to ensure correctness and protection against stale old messages which maybe could interest you in general if you are looking into SCMI: [PATCH v7 04/15] firmware: arm_scmi: Introduce monotonically increasing tokens Let me know if yo have other concerns. Thanks Cristian _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-31 5:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-04 21:19 [PATCH v3] firmware: arm_scmi: Free mailbox channels if probe fails Rishabh Bhatnagar 2021-08-05 10:54 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-08-05 10:54 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-08-30 21:09 ` rishabhb 2021-08-31 5:48 ` Cristian Marussi [this message] 2021-08-31 5:48 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-09-01 9:35 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-09-01 9:35 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-01 16:35 ` rishabhb 2021-11-02 11:32 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-11-02 11:32 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-11-04 23:40 ` rishabhb 2021-11-05 9:43 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-05 9:43 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-05 17:40 ` rishabhb 2021-11-07 10:34 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-07 10:34 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-07 18:22 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-07 18:22 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-08 17:58 ` rishabhb 2021-11-09 14:38 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-11-09 14:38 ` Cristian Marussi 2021-08-09 5:00 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-08-09 5:00 ` Sudeep Holla
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=20210831054835.GJ13160@e120937-lin \ --to=cristian.marussi@arm.com \ --cc=adharmap@codeaurora.org \ --cc=avajid@codeaurora.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rishabhb@codeaurora.org \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ /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: linkBe 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.