Re: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device

From: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>,
	Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:23:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <60a56ae6-ed9d-57cd-130f-5bd9d32d4d58@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGsFOtsOjt1sLNPSFLEcu-7d1zxCOhTeC+P8e0TDbb1dSA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 7/13/2017 5:20 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Hi Vivek,
>>
>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>>   static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>>                    size_t size)
>>>>>   {
>>>>> -    struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> +    struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>> +    struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> +    size_t ret;
>>>>>         if (!ops)
>>>>>           return 0;
>>>>>   -    return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>>>>> +    pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
>>>> to recall that being a problem before.
>>>
>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
>>>
>>> Looks like we don't  need locks here anymore?
>>
>>  Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
>>  from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
>>  should have enabled the pm ?
>>
> 
> Yes, there are a bunch of scenarios where unmap can happen with
> disabled master (but not in atomic context).  On the gpu side we
> opportunistically keep a buffer mapping until the buffer is freed
> (which can happen after gpu is disabled).  Likewise, v4l2 won't unmap
> an exported dmabuf while some other driver holds a reference to it
> (which can be dropped when the v4l2 device is suspended).
> 
> Since unmap triggers tbl flush which touches iommu regs, the iommu
> driver *definitely* needs a pm_runtime_get_sync().

 Ok, with that being the case, there are two things here,

 1) If the device links are still intact at these places where unmap is called,
    then pm_runtime from the master would setup the all the clocks. That would
    avoid reintroducing the locking indirectly here.

 2) If not, then doing it here is the only way. But for both cases, since
    the unmap can be called from atomic context, resume handler here should
    avoid doing clk_prepare_enable , instead move the clk_prepare to the init.

Regards,
 Sricharan


-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus