From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>,
Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ath10k: silence firmware file probing warnings
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:51:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160721115122.GA31869@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5790A28F.8030102@redhat.com>
(cc: firmware and brcmfmac maintainers)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:23:11AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>
> On 07/21/2016 04:05 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:36:42AM +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:00:37PM +0200, Michal Kazior wrote:
> >>>> Firmware files are versioned to prevent older
> >>>> driver instances to load unsupported firmware
> >>>> blobs. This is reflected with a fallback logic
> >>>> which attempts to load several firmware files.
> >>>>
> >>>> This however produced a lot of unnecessary
> >>>> warnings sometimes confusing users and leading
> >>>> them to rename firmware files making things even
> >>>> more confusing.
> >>>
> >>> This happens on kernels configured with
> >>> CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK and cause not only ugly warnings,
> >>> but also 60 seconds delay before loading next firmware version.
> >>> For some reason RHEL kernel needs above config option, so this
> >>> patch is very welcome from my perspective.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry for my ignorance but how does the firmware loading work if not
> >> with udev's help?
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly, but I think kernel VFS layer is capable to copy
> > file data directly from mounted filesystem without user space helper.
>
> Here's the situation: request_firmware() waits 60 seconds for udev to do its
> loading magic via a "usermode helper". This delay is there to allow, for
> example, userspace to unpack or download a new firmware image or verify the
> firmware image *in userspace* before providing it to the driver to apply to the HW.
>
> Why 60 seconds? It is arbitrary and there is no way for udev & the kernel to
> handshake on completion.
>
> >
> >> As you can imagine, iwlwifi is suffering from the
> >> same problem and I would be interested in applying the same change,
> >> but I'd love to understand a bit more :)
> >
> > Yes, iwlwifi (and some other drivers) suffer from this. However this
> > happen when the newest firmware version is not installed on the system
> > and CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK is enabled. What I suppose
> > it's not common.
>
> request_firmware_direct() was introduced at my request because (as you've
> noticed) when CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK=y drivers may stall for long
> periods of time when starting. The bug that this introduced was a 60 second
> delay per logical cpu when starting a system. On a 64 cpu system that meant the
> boot would complete in a little over one hour.
>
> >
> > I started to see this currently, because that option was enabled on
> > RHEL kernel. BTW: I think Prarit iwlwifi thermal_zone problem was
> > happened because of that, i.e. thermal device was not functional
> > because f/w wasn't loaded due to big delay.
> >
> > I'm not sure if replacing to request_firmware_direct() is a good
> > fix though. For example I can see this problem also on brcmfmac, which
> > use request_firmware_nowait(). I think I would rather prefer special
> > helper for firmware drivers that needs user helper and have
> > request_firmware() be direct as default.
> >
>
> The difference between request_firmware_direct() and request_firmware() is that
> the _direct() version does not wait the 60 seconds for udev interaction. The
> only userspace check performed is to see if the file is there, and if the file
> does exist it is provided to the driver to be applied to the hardware.
>
> So the real question to ask here is whether or not the ath10k, brcmfmac, and
> iwlwifi require udev to do anything beyond checking for the existence and
> loading the firmware image. If they don't, then it is better to use
> request_firmware_direct().
They don't need that, like 99% of the drivers I think, hence changing the
default seems to be more reasonable. However changing 3 drivers would work
for me as well, and that change do not introduce risk of broking drivers
that require udev fw download.
iwlwifi and ath10k are trivial, bcrmfmac is a bit more complex as it
use request_firmware_nowait(), so it first need to be converted to
ordinary request_firmware(), but this should be doable and I can do
that.
However I wonder if changing that will not broke the case when
driver is build-in in the kernel and f/w is not yet available when
driver start to initialize. Or maybe nowadays this is not the case
any longer, i.e. the MODULE_FIRMWARE macros assure proper f/w
images are build-in in the kernel or copied to initramfs?
Thanks
Stanislaw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-21 11:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-19 13:00 [RFC] ath10k: silence firmware file probing warnings Michal Kazior
2016-07-21 7:09 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2016-07-21 7:36 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2016-07-21 8:05 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2016-07-21 10:23 ` Prarit Bhargava
2016-07-21 11:51 ` Stanislaw Gruszka [this message]
2016-07-21 12:01 ` Prarit Bhargava
2016-07-22 8:38 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-07-22 10:26 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2016-07-22 12:21 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-07-22 12:51 ` Prarit Bhargava
2016-07-22 22:19 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-07-25 7:51 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2016-07-22 22:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-07-28 19:23 ` Arend van Spriel
2016-08-02 11:10 ` Valo, Kalle
2016-08-02 14:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-03 11:33 ` Arend van Spriel
2016-08-03 14:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-03 15:04 ` Valo, Kalle
2016-08-03 17:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-03 19:19 ` Arend van Spriel
2016-07-22 22:05 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-07-28 19:23 ` Arend van Spriel
2016-07-28 23:28 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-02 11:18 ` Valo, Kalle
2016-08-02 11:24 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-20 12:51 ` Kalle Valo
2017-01-20 12:56 ` Michal Kazior
2017-01-31 15:02 ` Kalle Valo
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=20160721115122.GA31869@redhat.com \
--to=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=arend@broadcom.com \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=egrumbach@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.kazior@tieto.com \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
/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).