lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] soc/tegra: pmc: Fix "scheduling while atomic"
From
Date
On 26.05.2016 17:32, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 26/05/16 12:42, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 26.05.2016 11:42, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/05/16 19:51, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> On 25.05.2016 18:09, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> If you are able to reproduce this on v3.18, then it would be good if
>>>>> you
>>>>> could trace the CCF calls around this WARNING to see what is causing
>>>>> the
>>>>> contention.
>>>>
>>>> I managed to reproduce it with some CCF "tracing".
>>>> Full kmsg log is here: https://bpaste.net/show/d8ab7b7534b7
>>>>
>>>> Looks like CPU freq governor thread yields during clk_set_rate() and
>>>> then CPU idle kicks in, taking the same mutex.
>>>
>>> On the surface that sounds odd to me, but without understanding the
>>> details, I guess I don't know if this is a valid thing to be doing or
>>> even how that actually works!
>>>
>>
>> The reason of that happening should be that I'm using clk PRE/POST rate
>> change notifiers in my DVFS driver that takes other mutexes and they
>> could be locked, causing schedule. I haven't mentioned it before, sorry.
>
> OK, but I am not sure how these "other mutexes" would be relevant here
> without any more details.
>
>> From drivers/clk/clk.c:
>>
>> static struct task_struct *prepare_owner;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> /*** locking ***/
>> static void clk_prepare_lock(void)
>> {
>> if (!mutex_trylock(&prepare_lock)) {
>> if (prepare_owner == current) {
>> prepare_refcnt++;
>> return;
>> }
>> mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
>> }
>>
>> You can see that it would lock the mutex if prepare_owner != current, in
>> my case it's idle thread != interactive gov. thread.
>
> Right, but that would imply that someone else is actively doing
> something with a clock. However, if we are entering LP2, then that
> implies that all CPUs are idle and so I still don't understand the
> scenario where this would be locked in that case. May be there is
> something I am overlooking here?
>
>>>> However, cpufreq_interactive governor is android specific governor and
>>>> isn't in upstream kernel yet. Quick googling shows that recent
>>>> "upstreaming" patch uses same cpufreq_interactive_speedchange_task:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/20/41
>>>
>>> Do you know if this version they are upstreaming could also yield during
>>> the clk_set_rate()?
>>>
>>
>> I think it should be assumed that any clk_set_rate() potentially could.
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>>>> I'm not aware of other possibility to reproduce this issue, it needs
>>>> some CCF interaction from a separate task. So the current upstream
>>>> kernel shouldn't be affected, I guess.
>>>
>>> What still does not make sense to me is why any frequency changes have
>>> not completed before we attempt to enter the LP2 state?
>>>
>> Why not? I don't see any CPUIDLE <-> CPUFREQ interlocking. Do you think
>> it could be harmful somehow?
>
> Like I said before, I still don't understand that scenario that is
> causing this and without being able to fully understand it, I have no
> idea what the exact problem we are trying to fix here is.
>

That's how I see it:

+----------------------------------------------+
| CPU 0 |
+-------------------+--------------------------+
| Idle thread | Interactive gov. thread |
+----------------------------------------------+
| inactive | |
| | |
| | CPU freq. change |
| | |
| | clk_set_rate() |
| | |
| ... | clk_prepare_lock() |
| | |
| | PRE rate notifier call |
| | |
| | schedule |
| | |
| irqs_disable() | |
| | |
| enter CPU idle | |
| | |
| clk_get_rate(pclk)| |
| | |
| clk_prepare_lock()| |
| | |
| schedule bug() | |
| | |
+-------------------+--------------------------+

--
Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-26 17:01    [W:0.120 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site