Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: sysmon: Ensure remote notification ordering

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed 04 Nov 10:16 CST 2020, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

> The reliance on the remoteproc's state for determining when to send
> sysmon notifications to a remote processor is racy with regard to
> concurrent remoteproc operations.
> 
> Further more the advertisement of the state of other remote processor to
> a newly started remote processor might not only send the wrong state,
> but might result in a stream of state changes that are out of order.
> 
> Address this by introducing state tracking within the sysmon instances
> themselves and extend the locking to ensure that the notifications are
> consistent with this state.
> 
> The use of a big lock for all instances will cause contention for
> concurrent remote processor state transitions, but the correctness of
> the remote processors' view of their peers is more important.
> 
> Fixes: 1f36ab3f6e3b ("remoteproc: sysmon: Inform current rproc about all active rprocs")
> Fixes: 1877f54f75ad ("remoteproc: sysmon: Add notifications for events")
> Fixes: 1fb82ee806d1 ("remoteproc: qcom: Introduce sysmon")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> index 9eb2f6bccea6..1e507b66354a 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_sysmon.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ struct qcom_sysmon {
>  	struct rproc_subdev subdev;
>  	struct rproc *rproc;
>  
> +	int state;
> +
>  	struct list_head node;
>  
>  	const char *name;
> @@ -448,7 +450,10 @@ static int sysmon_prepare(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
>  		.ssr_event = SSCTL_SSR_EVENT_BEFORE_POWERUP
>  	};
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&sysmon_lock);

This doesn't work, because taking the big lock prevents a concurrently
failing remote processor from reaching smd orglink to indicate that that
remote is dead and the first remote's notifications should be
aborted/fail fast.

The result is in most cases that we're stuck here waiting for a timeout,
but there are extreme corner cases where the notification might be
waiting for the dead remote to drain the communication fifo.


Will send a new version that don't rely on the big lock, but still keeps
state information consistent.

Regards,
Bjorn