lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] remoteproc: qcom: Add per subsystem SSR notification
On 2020-06-18 16:35, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 18 Jun 16:00 PDT 2020, Alex Elder wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/20 10:34 PM, Rishabh Bhatnagar wrote:
>> > Currently there is a single notification chain which is called whenever any
>> > remoteproc shuts down. This leads to all the listeners being notified, and
>> > is not an optimal design as kernel drivers might only be interested in
>> > listening to notifications from a particular remoteproc. Create a global
>> > list of remoteproc notification info data structures. This will hold the
>> > name and notifier_list information for a particular remoteproc. The API
>> > to register for notifications will use name argument to retrieve the
>> > notification info data structure and the notifier block will be added to
>> > that data structure's notification chain. Also move from blocking notifier
>> > to srcu notifer based implementation to support dynamic notifier head
>> > creation.
>>
>> I'm looking at these patches now, without having reviewed the
>> previous versions. Forgive me if I contradict or duplicate
>> previous feedback.
>>
>> I have a number of suggestions, below.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>
> Thanks for your review Alex, some feedback on the patch and your
> response below.
>
>> > Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@codeaurora.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@codeaurora.org>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h | 5 ++-
>> > include/linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h | 20 ++++++---
>> > 3 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
>> > index 9028cea..61ff2dd 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
>> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>> > #include <linux/module.h>
>> > #include <linux/notifier.h>
>> > #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>> > +#include <linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h>
>> > #include <linux/rpmsg/qcom_glink.h>
>> > #include <linux/rpmsg/qcom_smd.h>
>> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h>
>> > @@ -23,7 +24,14 @@
>> > #define to_smd_subdev(d) container_of(d, struct qcom_rproc_subdev, subdev)
>> > #define to_ssr_subdev(d) container_of(d, struct qcom_rproc_ssr, subdev)
>> > -static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(ssr_notifiers);
>> > +struct qcom_ssr_subsystem {
>> > + const char *name;
>> > + struct srcu_notifier_head notifier_list;
>> > + struct list_head list;
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > +static LIST_HEAD(qcom_ssr_subsystem_list);
>> > +DEFINE_MUTEX(qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>>
>> There is no need for this mutex to be global.
>>
>> > static int glink_subdev_start(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
>> > {
>> > @@ -189,39 +197,79 @@ void qcom_remove_smd_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_subdev *smd)
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_remove_smd_subdev);
>> > +struct qcom_ssr_subsystem *qcom_ssr_get_subsys(const char *name)
>>
>> This function should be made private (static).
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>> I think the mutex should be taken in this function rather than
>> the caller (more on this below). But if you leave it this way,
>> please mention something in a comment that indicates the caller
>> must hold the qcom_ssr_subsys_lock mutex.
>>
>
> I agree, that would simplify reasoning about the lock.
>
>> > +{
>> > + struct qcom_ssr_subsystem *info;
>> > +
>> > + /* Match in the global qcom_ssr_subsystem_list with name */
>> > + list_for_each_entry(info, &qcom_ssr_subsystem_list, list) {
>> > + if (!strcmp(info->name, name))
>> > + return info;
>>
>> This probably isn't strictly necessary, because you are
>> returning a void pointer, but you could do this here:
>> return ERR_CAST(info);
>
> Info is a struct qcom_ssr_subsystem * and that's the function's return
> type as well, so Rishabh's approach looks correct to me.
>
>>
>> > + }
>>
>> This is purely a style thing, but the curly braces around
>> the loop body aren't necessary.
>>
>> > + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
>> > + if (!info)
>> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> > + info->name = kstrdup_const(name, GFP_KERNEL);
>> > + srcu_init_notifier_head(&info->notifier_list);
>> > +
>> > + /* Add to global notif list */
>>
>> s/notif/notification/
>>
>> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->list);
>>
>> No need to initialize the list element when adding it
>> to a list. Both uts fields will be overwritten anyway.
>>
>> > + list_add_tail(&info->list, &qcom_ssr_subsystem_list);
>> > +
>> > + return info;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > /**
>> > * qcom_register_ssr_notifier() - register SSR notification handler
>> > + * @name: name that will be searched in global ssr subsystem list
>>
>> Maybe just "SSR subsystem name".
>>
>> > * @nb: notifier_block to notify for restart notifications
>>
>> Drop or modify "restart" in the comment line above.
>>
>> > *
>> > - * Returns 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
>> > + * Returns a subsystem cookie on success, ERR_PTR on failure.
>>
>> Maybe make the above a @Return: comment.
>>
>
> No @ in that, but "Return: foo" is the appropriate format.
>
>> > *
>> > - * This register the @notify function as handler for restart notifications. As
>> > - * remote processors are stopped this function will be called, with the SSR
>> > - * name passed as a parameter.
>> > + * This registers the @nb notifier block as part the notifier chain for a
>> > + * remoteproc associated with @name. The notifier block's callback
>> > + * will be invoked when the particular remote processor is stopped.
>>
>> It's not just for stopping, right? Maybe something
>> more like:
>> Register to receive notification callbacks when
>> remoteproc SSR events occur (pre- and post-startup
>> and pre- and post-shutdown).
>>
>
> And this description of the function should go above the Return:
>
> See
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-documentation
>
>> > */
>> > -int qcom_register_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > +void *qcom_register_ssr_notifier(const char *name, struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > {
>> > - return blocking_notifier_chain_register(&ssr_notifiers, nb);
>> > + struct qcom_ssr_subsystem *info;
>> > +
>> > + mutex_lock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>>
>> Can you explain why the mutex is taken here (and in
>> qcom_add_ssr_subdev()), rather than having the mutex
>> logic be isolated in qcom_ssr_get_subsys()?
>>
>> > + info = qcom_ssr_get_subsys(name);
>> > + if (IS_ERR(info)) {
>> > + mutex_unlock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>> > + return info;
>> > + }
>>
>> I don't think there's any need to have the next function
>> call be protected by the mutex, but maybe I'm mistaken.
>>
>> > + srcu_notifier_chain_register(&info->notifier_list, nb);
>> > + mutex_unlock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>> > + return &info->notifier_list;
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_register_ssr_notifier);
>> > /**
>> > * qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier() - unregister SSR notification handler
>> > + * @notify: subsystem coookie returned from qcom_register_ssr_notifier
>> > * @nb: notifier_block to unregister
>>
>> Add a @Return comment (0 on success, %ENOENT otherwise).
>>
>> > */
>> > -void qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > +int qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(void *notify, struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > {
>> > - blocking_notifier_chain_unregister(&ssr_notifiers, nb);
>> > + return srcu_notifier_chain_unregister(notify, nb);
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier);
>> > static void ssr_notify_unprepare(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
>> > {
>> > struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr = to_ssr_subdev(subdev);
>> > + struct qcom_ssr_notif_data data = {
>> > + .name = ssr->info->name,
>> > + .crashed = false,
>> > + };
>> > - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ssr_notifiers, 0, (void *)ssr->name);
>> > + srcu_notifier_call_chain(&ssr->info->notifier_list, 0, &data);
>> > }
>> > +
>> > /**
>> > * qcom_add_ssr_subdev() - register subdevice as restart notification source
>> > * @rproc: rproc handle
>> > @@ -229,12 +277,23 @@ static void ssr_notify_unprepare(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
>> > * @ssr_name: identifier to use for notifications originating from @rproc
>> > *
>> > * As the @ssr is registered with the @rproc SSR events will be sent to all
>> > - * registered listeners in the system as the remoteproc is shut down.
>> > + * registered listeners for the particular remoteproc when it is shutdown.
>> > */
>> > void qcom_add_ssr_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr,
>> > const char *ssr_name)
>> > {
>> > - ssr->name = ssr_name;
>> > + struct qcom_ssr_subsystem *info;
>> > +
>> > + mutex_lock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>> > + info = qcom_ssr_get_subsys(ssr_name);
>>
>> If there already exists an SSR subsystem having the given
>> name, its info structure is returned here. Is that OK?
>> In practice, I don't expect this to be a problem, but it
>> would be better to return an error if
>>
>
> You're right...that shouldn't happen. So a WARN_ON() and early return
> would be in order.
>
the info structure needs to be embedded in the qcom_rproc_ssr struct in
case
where clients register for notifications even before that particular ssr
subdevice is registered. Logically add_ssr_subdev shouldn't happen twice
for
a rproc without doing remove.
>> > + if (IS_ERR(info)) {
>> > + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to add ssr subdevice\n");
>> > + mutex_unlock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>> > + return;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + mutex_unlock(&qcom_ssr_subsys_lock);
>> > + ssr->info = info;
>> > ssr->subdev.unprepare = ssr_notify_unprepare;
>> > rproc_add_subdev(rproc, &ssr->subdev);
>> > @@ -249,6 +308,7 @@ void qcom_add_ssr_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr,
>> > void qcom_remove_ssr_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr)
>> > {
>> > rproc_remove_subdev(rproc, &ssr->subdev);
>> > + ssr->info = NULL;
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_remove_ssr_subdev);
>> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
>> > index 34e5188..dfc641c 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
>> > @@ -26,10 +26,11 @@ struct qcom_rproc_subdev {
>> > struct qcom_smd_edge *edge;
>> > };
>> > +struct qcom_ssr_subsystem;
>> > +
>> > struct qcom_rproc_ssr {
>> > struct rproc_subdev subdev;
>> > -
>> > - const char *name;
>> > + struct qcom_ssr_subsystem *info;
>> > };
>> > void qcom_add_glink_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_glink *glink,
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h
>> > index fa8e386..58422b1 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc/qcom_rproc.h
>> > @@ -5,17 +5,27 @@
>> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QCOM_RPROC_COMMON)
>> > -int qcom_register_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
>> > -void qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
>> > +struct qcom_ssr_notif_data {
>> > + const char *name;
>> > + bool crashed;
>>
>> Is the crashed field strictly necessary? Could we instead have
>> a QCOM_SSR_CRASHED event (in place of QCOM_SSR_BEFORE_SHUTDOWN)?
>> I don't know, it's possible doing it the way you do ultimately
>> simplifies the logic... So I'm asking, but not suggesting.
>>
>
> I looked at something similar for the subdev callbacks, but concluded
> that most cases I could find was cleaner if I just passed a bool
> crashed
> than having two separate functions to deal with in the client drivers.
>
> So I'm okay with this.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > +void *qcom_register_ssr_notifier(const char *name, struct notifier_block *nb);
>> > +int qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(void *notify, struct notifier_block *nb);
>> > #else
>> > -static inline int qcom_register_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > +static inline void *qcom_register_ssr_notifier(const char *name,
>> > + struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > {
>> > - return 0;
>> > + return NULL;
>> > }
>> > -static inline void qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb) {}
>> > +static inline int qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(void *notify,
>> > + struct notifier_block *nb)
>> > +{
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > #endif
>> >
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-20 21:48    [W:0.071 / U:6.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site