From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_clew@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when in RPROC_OFFLINE
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:34:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221013173442.GA1279972@p14s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <792f05fc-995e-9a87-ab7d-bee03f15bc79@quicinc.com>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 09:40:09AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 10/13/2022 4:43 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Please add what has changed from one version to another, either in a cover
> > letter or after the "Signed-off-by". There are many examples on how to do that
> > on the mailing list.
> >
> Thx for the information, will take a note and benefit for next time.
>
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:12:31PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> > > RPROC_OFFLINE state indicate there is no recovery process
> > > is in progress and no chance to do the pm_relax.
> > > Because when recovering from crash, rproc->lock is held and
> > > state is RPROC_CRASHED -> RPROC_OFFLINE -> RPROC_RUNNING,
> > > and then unlock rproc->lock.
> >
> > You are correct - because the lock is held rproc->state should be set to RPROC_RUNNING
> > when rproc_trigger_recovery() returns. If that is not the case then something
> > went wrong.
> >
> > Function rproc_stop() sets rproc->state to RPROC_OFFLINE just before returning,
> > so we know the remote processor was stopped. Therefore if rproc->state is set
> > to RPROC_OFFLINE something went wrong in either request_firmware() or
> > rproc_start(). Either way the remote processor is offline and the system probably
> > in an unknown/unstable. As such I don't see how calling pm_relax() can help
> > things along.
> >
> PROC_OFFLINE is possible that rproc_shutdown is triggered and successfully
> finished.
> Even if it is multi crash rproc_crash_handler_work contention issue, and
> last rproc_trigger_recovery bailed out with only
> rproc->state==RPROC_OFFLINE, it is still worth to do pm_relax in pair.
> Since the subsystem may still can be recovered with customer's next trigger
> of rproc_start, and we can make each error out path clean with pm resources.
>
> > I suggest spending time understanding what leads to the failure when recovering
> > from a crash and address that problem(s).
> >
> In current case, the customer's information is that the issue happened when
> rproc_shutdown is triggered at similar time. So not an issue from error out
> of rproc_trigger_recovery.
That is a very important element to consider and should have been mentioned from
the beginning. What I see happening is the following:
rproc_report_crash()
pm_stay_awake()
queue_work() // current thread is suspended
rproc_shutdown()
rproc_stop()
rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
rproc_crash_handler_work()
if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)
return // pm_relax() is not called
The right way to fix this is to add a pm_relax() in rproc_shutdown() and
rproc_detach(), along with a very descriptive comment as to why it is needed.
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >
> > > When the state is in RPROC_OFFLINE it means separate request
> > > of rproc_stop was done and no need to hold the wakeup source
> > > in crash handler to recover any more.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > index e5279ed9a8d7..6bc7b8b7d01e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > @@ -1956,6 +1956,17 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
> > > /* handle only the first crash detected */
> > > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > > + /*
> > > + * RPROC_OFFLINE state indicate there is no recovery process
> > > + * is in progress and no chance to have pm_relax in place.
> > > + * Because when recovering from crash, rproc->lock is held and
> > > + * state is RPROC_CRASHED -> RPROC_OFFLINE -> RPROC_RUNNING,
> > > + * and then unlock rproc->lock.
> > > + * RPROC_OFFLINE is only an intermediate state in recovery
> > > + * process.
> > > + */
> > > + if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE)
> > > + pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
>
>
> --
> Thx and BRs,
> Aiqun(Maria) Yu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-13 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-09 8:33 [PATCH v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash Maria Yu
2022-09-09 19:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-09-13 11:03 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-09-15 10:04 ` [PATCH v2] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when in RPROC_OFFLINE Maria Yu
2022-09-15 12:47 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-09-16 1:34 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-09-16 1:36 ` [PATCH v3] " Maria Yu
2022-09-16 7:12 ` [PATCH v4] " Maria Yu
2022-09-16 8:47 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-10-12 20:43 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-10-13 1:40 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-10-13 17:34 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2022-10-13 18:03 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-10-20 5:52 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-10-21 19:34 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-10-24 3:17 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-10-28 15:31 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2022-10-31 1:08 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-01 20:11 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-02 10:53 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-02 18:03 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-03 2:03 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-04 15:59 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-07 1:14 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-10 20:50 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-11 0:52 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-14 21:18 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-15 1:30 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-18 18:52 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-21 1:43 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-11-25 18:37 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-11-28 2:18 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-12-01 23:00 ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-12-02 1:17 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
2022-09-16 17:05 ` [PATCH v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash Mathieu Poirier
2022-09-19 0:54 ` Aiqun(Maria) Yu
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=20221013173442.GA1279972@p14s \
--to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_aiquny@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_clew@quicinc.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