From: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-remoteproc <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] remoteproc: qcom: q6v5: Add common panic handler
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:00:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e7aae03-95ce-6786-a62b-139546b17e27@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200129201546.GA31696@xps15>
On 1/29/20 9:15 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:46:05AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/20 7:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 10:49, Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bjorn, Mathieu
>>>>
>>>> On 1/23/20 6:15 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu 23 Jan 09:01 PST 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Bjorn Andersson
>>>>>> <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri 10 Jan 13:28 PST 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:32:14PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Add a common panic handler that invokes a stop request and sleep enough
>>>>>>>>> to let the remoteproc flush it's caches etc in order to aid post mortem
>>>>>>>>> debugging.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>>>>>> - None
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
>>>>>>>>> index cb0f4a0be032..17167c980e02 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> * Copyright (C) 2014 Sony Mobile Communications AB
>>>>>>>>> * Copyright (c) 2012-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -15,6 +16,8 @@
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include "qcom_q6v5.h"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +#define Q6V5_PANIC_DELAY_MS 200
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>> * qcom_q6v5_prepare() - reinitialize the qcom_q6v5 context before start
>>>>>>>>> * @q6v5: reference to qcom_q6v5 context to be reinitialized
>>>>>>>>> @@ -162,6 +165,22 @@ int qcom_q6v5_request_stop(struct qcom_q6v5 *q6v5)
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_q6v5_request_stop);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>> + * qcom_q6v5_panic() - panic handler to invoke a stop on the remote
>>>>>>>>> + * @q6v5: reference to qcom_q6v5 context
>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>> + * Set the stop bit and sleep in order to allow the remote processor to flush
>>>>>>>>> + * its caches etc for post mortem debugging.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>> +void qcom_q6v5_panic(struct qcom_q6v5 *q6v5)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + qcom_smem_state_update_bits(q6v5->state,
>>>>>>>>> + BIT(q6v5->stop_bit), BIT(q6v5->stop_bit));
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + mdelay(Q6V5_PANIC_DELAY_MS);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really wonder if the delay should be part of the remoteproc core and
>>>>>>>> configurable via device tree. Wanting the remote processor to flush its caches
>>>>>>>> is likely something other vendors will want when dealing with a kernel panic.
>>>>>>>> It would be nice to see if other people have an opinion on this topic. If not
>>>>>>>> then we can keep the delay here and move it to the core if need be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I gave this some more thought and what we're trying to achieve is to
>>>>>>> signal the remote processors about the panic and then give them time to
>>>>>>> react, but per the proposal (and Qualcomm downstream iirc) we will do
>>>>>>> this for each remote processor, one by one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in the typical case of a Qualcomm platform with 4-5 remoteprocs we'll
>>>>>>> end up giving the first one a whole second to react and the last one
>>>>>>> "only" 200ms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving the delay to the core by iterating over rproc_list calling
>>>>>>> panic() and then delaying would be cleaner imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be nice to make this configurable in DT, but I agree that it
>>>>>>> would be nice to hear from others if this would be useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the delay has to be configurable via DT if we move this to the
>>>>>> core. The binding can be optional and default to 200ms if not
>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about I make the panic() return the required delay and then we let
>>>>> the core sleep for MAX() of the returned durations?
>>>
>>> I like it.
>>>
>>>> That way the default
>>>>> is still a property of the remoteproc drivers - and 200ms seems rather
>>>>> arbitrary to put in the core, even as a default.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Bjorn, the delay should be provided by the platform.
>>>> But in this case i wonder if it is simpler to just let the platform take care it?
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly, that is what Bjorn's original
>>> implementation was doing and it had drawbacks.
>> Yes,
>> Please tell me if i missed something, the only drawback seems mentioned is the accumulative delay.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
>> Could you elaborate how to implement the delay in remote proc core for multi rproc instance.
>> Here is my view:
>> To optimize the delay it would probably be necessary to compute:
>> - the delay based on an initial date,
>> - the delay requested by each rproc instance,
>> - the delay elapsed in each rproc panic ops.
>> Feasible but not straight forward...
>> So I suppose that you are thinking about a solution based on the store of the max delay that would be applied after last panic() return?
>
> Yes
>
>> anyway, how do you determine the last rproc instance? seems that a prerequisite would be that the panic ops is mandatory...
>
> Each ->panic() should return the amount of time to way or 0 if no delay is
> required. If an rpoc doesn't implement ->panic() then it is treated as 0.
> From there wait for the maximum time that was collected.
>
> It would be possible to do something more complicated like taking timestamps
> everytime a ->panic() returns and optimize the time to wait for but that may be
> for a future set. The first implementation could go with an simple heuristic as
> detailed above.
Seems reasonable.
A last point. i don't know if the case is realistic so i prefer to mention it:
we can imagine that a rproc platform driver already manages a panic (for instance a video decoder driver that uses a coprocessor).
In this case there is a risk that the rproc is remove during the panic.
Depending on the panic sequence ordering this could generate a side effect (no delay as last rproc panic ops could be never called).
But seems not too tricky to take it into account in remoteproc core.
>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with panic mechanism, but how panic ops are scheduled in SMP? Does panics ops would be treated in parallel (using msleep instead of mdelay)?
>> In this case delays could not be cumulative...
>
> The processor that triggered the panic sequentially runs the notifier registered
> with the panic_notifier_list. Other processors are instructed to take
> themselves offline. As such there won't be multiple ->panic() running
> concurrently.
Thank you for that explanation!
Regards,
Arnaud
>
>>
>>>
>>>> For instance for stm32mp1 the stop corresponds to the reset on the remote processor core. To inform the coprocessor about an imminent shutdown we use a signal relying on a mailbox (cf. stm32_rproc_stop).
>>>> In this case we would need a delay between the signal and the reset, but not after (no cache management).
>>>
>>> Here I believe you are referring to the upper limit of 500ms that is
>>> needed for the mbox_send_message() in stm32_rproc_stop() to complete.
>>> Since that is a blocking call I think it would fit with Bjorn's
>>> proposal above if a value of '0' is returned by rproc->ops->panic().
>>> That would mean no further delays are needed (because the blocking
>>> mbox_send_message() would have done the job already). Let me know if
>>> I'm in the weeds.
>> Yes you are :), this is what i thought, if delay implemented in core.
>
> Not sure I understand your last reply but I _think_ we are saying the same
> thing.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Arnaud
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bjorn
>>>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-30 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-27 5:32 [PATCH v2 0/8] remoteproc: qcom: post mortem debug support Bjorn Andersson
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add Qualcomm PIL info binding Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-04 21:38 ` Rob Herring
2020-01-04 22:17 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-23 22:07 ` Rob Herring
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce driver to store pil info in IMEM Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-10 21:18 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-22 2:02 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-22 19:04 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-22 19:19 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-22 22:56 ` rishabhb
2020-01-22 23:08 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-22 23:58 ` rishabhb
2020-01-23 5:38 ` Bjorn Andersson
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] remoteproc: qcom: Update IMEM PIL info on load Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-10 21:19 ` Mathieu Poirier
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs404: Add IMEM and PIL info region Bjorn Andersson
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: " Bjorn Andersson
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] remoteproc: Introduce "panic" callback in ops Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-10 21:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-30 10:07 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] remoteproc: qcom: q6v5: Add common panic handler Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-10 21:28 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-22 19:39 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-23 17:01 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-23 17:15 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-23 17:49 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-01-24 18:44 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-27 9:46 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-01-29 20:15 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-01-30 10:00 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN [this message]
2019-12-27 5:32 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce panic handler for PAS and ADSP Bjorn Andersson
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=4e7aae03-95ce-6786-a62b-139546b17e27@st.com \
--to=arnaud.pouliquen@st.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
--cc=rishabhb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sibis@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).