From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: rishabhb@codeaurora.org
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@codeaurora.org>,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] remoteproc: sysmon: Ensure remote notification ordering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:40:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201111054004.GG332990@builder.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb182a63172af055be473247bc783bd6@codeaurora.org>
On Tue 10 Nov 18:57 CST 2020, rishabhb@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2020-11-04 20:50, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > The reliance on the remoteproc's state for determining when to send
> > sysmon notifications to a remote processor is racy with regard to
> > concurrent remoteproc operations.
> >
> > Further more the advertisement of the state of other remote processor to
> > a newly started remote processor might not only send the wrong state,
> > but might result in a stream of state changes that are out of order.
> >
> > Address this by introducing state tracking within the sysmon instances
> > themselves and extend the locking to ensure that the notifications are
> > consistent with this state.
> >
> > Fixes: 1f36ab3f6e3b ("remoteproc: sysmon: Inform current rproc about
> > all active rprocs")
> > Fixes: 1877f54f75ad ("remoteproc: sysmon: Add notifications for events")
> > Fixes: 1fb82ee806d1 ("remoteproc: qcom: Introduce sysmon")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Reduced the locking to be per sysmon instance
> > - Dropped unused local "rproc" variable in sysmon_notify()
> >
> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> > index 9eb2f6bccea6..38f63c968fa8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ struct qcom_sysmon {
> > struct rproc_subdev subdev;
> > struct rproc *rproc;
> >
> > + int state;
> > + struct mutex state_lock;
> > +
> > struct list_head node;
> >
> > const char *name;
> > @@ -448,7 +451,10 @@ static int sysmon_prepare(struct rproc_subdev
> > *subdev)
> > .ssr_event = SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_BEFORE_POWERUP
> > };
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&sysmon->state_lock);
> > + sysmon->state = SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_BEFORE_POWERUP;
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain(&sysmon_notifiers, 0, (void *)&event);
> > + mutex_unlock(&sysmon->state_lock);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -472,22 +478,25 @@ static int sysmon_start(struct rproc_subdev
> > *subdev)
> > .ssr_event = SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_AFTER_POWERUP
> > };
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&sysmon->state_lock);
> > + sysmon->state = SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_AFTER_POWERUP;
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain(&sysmon_notifiers, 0, (void *)&event);
> > + mutex_unlock(&sysmon->state_lock);
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&sysmon_lock);
>
> We should keep the sysmon_lock to make sure sysmon_list is not modified
> at the time we are doing this operation?
Yes, that seems like a very good idea. I will review and update.
> > list_for_each_entry(target, &sysmon_list, node) {
> > - if (target == sysmon ||
> > - target->rproc->state != RPROC_RUNNING)
> > + if (target == sysmon)
> > continue;
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&target->state_lock);
> > event.subsys_name = target->name;
> > + event.ssr_event = target->state;
>
> Is it better to only send this event when target->state is
> "SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_AFTER_POWERUP"?
It depends on what the remote's requirements, I tested this and didn't
see any problems sending both SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_AFTER_POWERUP and
SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_AFTER_SHUTDOWN at least...
I don't know if I managed to hit a case where I sent any of the
intermediate states.
If you could provide some more input here I would appreciate it -
although I would be happy to merge the patch after fixing above locking
issue and then we can limit the events sent once we have a more detailed
answer, if that helps.
Regards,
Bjorn
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-11 5:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20201105045051.1365780-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
2020-11-05 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] remoteproc: sysmon: Ensure remote notification ordering Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-11 0:57 ` rishabhb
2020-11-11 5:40 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
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=20201111054004.GG332990@builder.lan \
--to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
--cc=rishabhb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sibis@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sidgup@codeaurora.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.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).