[PATCH v5] ARM: vfp: Always save VFP state in vfp_pm_suspend

[ccross@android.com (Colin Cross)]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:40:06AM +0100, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2012/7/16 Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>:
>> > From: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
>> >
>> > vfp_pm_suspend should save the VFP state any time there is
>> > a vfp_current_hw_state.  If it only saves when the VFP is enabled,
>> > the state can get lost when, on a UP system:
>> >    Thread 1 uses the VFP
>> >    Context switch occurs to thread 2, VFP is disabled but the
>> >       VFP context is not saved to allow lazy save and restore
>> >    Thread 2 initiates suspend
>> >    vfp_pm_suspend is called with the VFP disabled, but the
>> >       context has not been saved.
>> >
>> > Modify vfp_pm_suspend to save the VFP context whenever
>> > vfp_current_hw_state is set.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
>> > Cc: Binghua Duan <binghua.duan@csr.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Rongjun Ying <rongjun.ying@csr.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>
>> we also found this kind of issue too, sometimes suspend/resume will
>> fail with this bug.
>> so we refined this patch before. but i am really wondering why it has
>> not been committed yet.
>
> At a guess, it hasn't been applied because nobody has submitted it to the
> patch system.
>
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> > index 58696192..c86fc52 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> > @@ -457,6 +457,10 @@ static int vfp_pm_suspend(void)
>> >
>> >                 /* disable, just in case */
>> >                 fmxr(FPEXC, fmrx(FPEXC) & ~FPEXC_EN);
>> > +       } else if (vfp_current_hw_state[ti->cpu]) {
>> > +               fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc | FPEXC_EN);
>> > +               vfp_save_state(vfp_current_hw_state[ti->cpu], fpexc);
>> > +               fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc);
>
> Given that we don't do lazy saving on SMP systems, can we make this
> conditional on !SMP?

Ido Yariv pointed out that this is actually unsafe on SMP systems,
because vfp_current_hw_state can be a dangling pointer if a task exits
on another cpu.  I'll squash his fix into this one (#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
around the contents of the new if clause) and post v6.