From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:22:14 -0800 From: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: Regression by commit 7e83cab824a86704cdbd7735c19d34e0ce423dc5 Message-ID: <20181108062214.GY12063@builder> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: To: xiang xiao Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, spjoshi@codeaurora.org List-ID: On Wed 07 Nov 06:25 PST 2018, xiang xiao wrote: > This commit replace rproc_{shutdown,boot}() with rproc_{stop,start}(), > which skip destroy the virtio device at stop but reinitialize it again at > start: > [ 603.446805] remoteproc remoteproc0: crash detected in > f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc: type mmufault > [ 603.456883] remoteproc remoteproc0: handling crash #1 in > f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc > [ 603.469593] remoteproc remoteproc0: recovering > f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc > [ 603.483172] remoteproc remoteproc0: stopped remote processor > f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc > [ 603.495999] kobject (ffffffc0b8c51098): tried to init an initialized > object, something is seriously wrong. > I thought this issue was fixed. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [ 603.506868] CPU: 5 PID: 198 Comm: kworker/5:1 Tainted: G W > 4.9.27-04454-gd4c1829-dirty #255 > [ 603.517468] Hardware name: Banks (DT) > [ 603.521581] Workqueue: events rproc_crash_handler_work > [ 603.527342] Call trace: > [ 603.530086] [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1cc > [ 603.536115] [] show_stack+0x14/0x1c > [ 603.541771] [] dump_stack+0xa8/0xe0 > [ 603.547423] [] kobject_init+0x8c/0x9c > [ 603.553280] [] device_initialize+0x3c/0xe8 > [ 603.559609] [] device_register+0x14/0x28 > [ 603.565750] [] register_virtio_device+0xc4/0x114 > [ 603.572669] [] rproc_add_virtio_dev+0x7c/0x108 > [ 603.579390] [] rproc_vdev_do_probe+0x14/0x1c > [ 603.585911] [] rproc_start+0xac/0x1ac > [ 603.591754] [] rproc_trigger_recovery+0x2f8/0x324 > [ 603.598763] [] rproc_crash_handler_work+0x90/0xb0 > [ 603.605778] [] process_one_work+0x204/0x704 > [ 603.612202] [] worker_thread+0x54/0x4a8 > [ 603.618248] [] kthread+0xec/0x100 > [ 603.623703] [] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40 > > When the crash happen, is it better to destroy and recreate all virtio > device and it�s children(rpmsg device) again to match the remote side state > like the original behavior? > Yes, it's likely that the protocols on top does share some state, so we do not have any choice but to report this up to the virtio device. Removing and re-probing the devices - rather than having some other form of notification of this event - makes the code simpler. But it seems we're trying to re-register the same device the second time, rather than initialize a new one. Regards, Bjorn