Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] remoteproc: Add support for detaching a rproc

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Mon Feb 08 2021 - 18:44:55 EST

Next message: akpm: "mmotm 2021-02-08-15-44 uploaded"
Previous message: Lyude Paul: "[RFC v4 11/11] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Add basic DPCD backlight support for nouveau"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 08:58:15AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/21 11:42 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:54:13AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/2/21 1:49 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >>>> Hi Mathieu
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/18/20 6:32 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>>>> Following the work done here [1], this set provides support for the
> >>>>> remoteproc core to release resources associated with a remote processor
> >>>>> without having to switch it off. That way a platform driver can be removed
> >>>>> or the application processor power cycled while the remote processor is
> >>>>> still operating.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of special interest in this series are patches 5 and 6 where getting the
> >>>>> address of the resource table installed by an eternal entity if moved to
> >>>>> the core. This is to support scenarios where a remote process has been
> >>>>> booted by the core but is being detached. To re-attach the remote
> >>>>> processor, the address of the resource table needs to be known at a later
> >>>>> time than the platform driver's probe() function.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Applies cleanly on v5.10
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Mathieu
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/14/1600
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> New for v4:
> >>>>> - Made binding description OS agnostic (Rob)
> >>>>> - Added functionality to set the external resource table in the core
> >>>>> - Fixed a crash when detaching (Arnaud)
> >>>>> - Fixed error code propagation in rproc_cdev_relase() and rproc_del() (Arnaud)
> >>>>> - Added RB tags
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I tested you series, attach and detach is working well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then I faced issue when tried to re-attach after a detach.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Right, in this case don't expect the re-attach to work properly because function
> >>> stm32_rproc_detach() does not exist. As such the M4 doesn't put itself back
> >>> in "wait-for-attach" mode as it does when booted by the boot loader. If I
> >>> remember correctly we talked about that during an earlier conversation and we
> >>> agreed FW support would be needed to properly test the re-attach.
> >>
> >> Yes you are right the remote firmware needs to be inform about the detach, and
> >> this is the purpose of the detach ops.
> >> But also some actions are missing on local side as some resources have also to
> >> be reinitialized as described in my previous mail.
> >> For instance the resource table is handled by the remoteproc framework. The
> >> remote firmware should only have a read access to this table.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> But I don't know if this feature has to be supported in this step.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2 issues I found are:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) memory carveouts are released on detach so need to be reinitialized.
> >>>> The use of prepare/unprepare for the attach and detach would solve the issue but
> >>>> probably need to add parameter to differentiate a start/stop from a attach/detach.
> >
> > I am in agreement with you assesment and the patch you have proposed to fix it.
> > Right now carveouts are properly handled between start and stop operations
> > because their parsing and allocation is done as part for ops:parse_fw(), which
> > is called for each iteration. Moving the parsing and allocation to
> > rproc_prepare_device() ends up doing the same thing.
> >
> > I am not sure we absolutely need an extra parameter to differentiate between
> > start/stop and attach/detach. Typically the rproc_prepare_device() is used to
> > do some kind of setup like providing power to a memory bank. I suppose that if
> > a memory bank is already powered by the boot loader, asking to power it up again
> > won't do anything.
> >
> > As such I suggest we keep the parameters as they are now. We can revisit if a
> > use case comes up at a later time.
> >
>
> Your suggestion sound good to me.
>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) The vrings in the loaded resource table (so no cached) has to be properly
> >>>> reinitialized. In rproc_free_vring the vring da is set to 0 that is then
> >>>> considered as a fixed address.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a fix which works on the stm32 platform
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ void rproc_free_vring(struct rproc_vring *rvring)
> >>>> */
> >>>> if (rproc->table_ptr) {
> >>>> rsc = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + rvring->rvdev->rsc_offset;
> >>>> - rsc->vring[idx].da = 0;
> >>>> + rsc->vring[idx].da = FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY;
> >>>> rsc->vring[idx].notifyid = -1;
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >
> > I see why this could be needed. I initially assumed the remote processor would
> > install a new resource table in memory upon receiving notification the core is
> > going away. But upon reflection the remote processor may not even have access
> > to the image it is running.
>
> The risk here is that both processors try to access this table at the same time.
>
> >
> > Let me think about this further - I want to make sure we don't introduce a
> > regression for current implementations.
>
> Just a precision: the vring DA can be fixed by the coprocessor firmware to
> impose the address, my patch is not sufficent in such case for the reattachment.
> That's why i suggested a copy of the resource table before updating it.
>
> Thanks,
> Arnaud
>
> >
> >>>
> >>> In light of the above let me know if these two issues are still relevant. If
> >>> so I'll investigate further.
> >>
> >> To highlight the issue just test attach/detach/attch with a firmware that
> >> implements a RPMsg communication. On the second attach the virtio framework is
> >> not properly restarted.
> >>
> >> Then please find at the end of the mail 3 patches for test I added on top of
> >> your series,that allow me to reattach. Of course the RPMsg channels are not
> >> re-created as i don't implement the remote FW part, but the Linux virtio and
> >> RPmsg frameworks are restarted.
> >>
> >> - [PATCH 1/3] remoteproc: stm32: add capability to detach from the remoteproc
> >> => Add a dummy function in stm32_rproc for test.
> >> - [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: Add prepare/unprepare for attach detach
> >> => Add prepare/unprepare on attach/detach + implement attach in stm32mp1 to
> >> reinitialize the memory region that as been cleaned on detach.
> >> - [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc: virtio: set to vring address to FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY on free
> >> => Reinitialize the vring addresses on detach. For this one a better
> >> implementation would be to use a cached resource table to fully
> >> reinitialize it on re-attach.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Arnaud
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mathieu
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here, perhaps a better alternative would be to make a cached copy on attach
> >>>> before updating it. On the next attach, the cached copy would be copied as it is
> >>>> done in rproc_start.

I've been staring long and hard at this code and I don't see another way than
keeping a clean copy of the resource table as you mentionned above. And
managing that table isn't trivial either. I am working on a solution, something
that I should be able to publish by the end of the week.

Thanks,
Mathieu

> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Arnaud
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathieu Poirier (17):
> >>>>> dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindind to support autonomous processors
> >>>>> remoteproc: Re-check state in rproc_shutdown()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Remove useless check in rproc_del()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Rename function rproc_actuate()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Add new get_loaded_rsc_table() remoteproc operation
> >>>>> remoteproc: stm32: Move resource table setup to rproc_ops
> >>>>> remoteproc: Add new RPROC_ATTACHED state
> >>>>> remoteproc: Properly represent the attached state
> >>>>> remoteproc: Properly deal with a kernel panic when attached
> >>>>> remoteproc: Add new detach() remoteproc operation
> >>>>> remoteproc: Introduce function __rproc_detach()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_detach()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Add return value to function rproc_shutdown()
> >>>>> remoteproc: Properly deal with a stop request when attached
> >>>>> remoteproc: Properly deal with a start request when attached
> >>>>> remoteproc: Properly deal with detach request
> >>>>> remoteproc: Refactor rproc delete and cdev release path
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-core.yaml | 27 +++
> >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_cdev.c | 32 ++-
> >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 211 +++++++++++++++---
> >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 8 +
> >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c | 20 +-
> >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 147 ++++++------
> >>>>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 24 +-
> >>>>> 7 files changed, 344 insertions(+), 125 deletions(-)
> >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-core.yaml
> >>>>>
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] remoteproc: stm32: add capability to detach from the
> >> remoteproc
> >>
> >> Add a dummy function to allow to detach. No specific action is needed
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 7 +++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> index 2c949725b91e..b325d28f627c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> @@ -590,6 +590,12 @@ static int stm32_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> return reset_control_assert(ddata->hold_boot);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int stm32_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +{
> >> + /* Nothing to do but ops mandatory to support the detach feature */
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int stm32_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> >> @@ -712,6 +718,7 @@ static struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = {
> >> .start = stm32_rproc_start,
> >> .stop = stm32_rproc_stop,
> >> .attach = stm32_rproc_attach,
> >> + .detach = stm32_rproc_detach,
> >> .kick = stm32_rproc_kick,
> >> .load = rproc_elf_load_segments,
> >> .parse_fw = stm32_rproc_parse_fw,
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: Add prepare/unprepare for attach detach
> >>
> >> Some actions such as memory resources reallocation are needed when try
> >> to reattach. Use the prepare ops for these actions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index f1f51ad1a1d6..f177561b8863 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1557,6 +1557,13 @@ static int rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + /* Prepare rproc for firmware loading if needed */
> >> + ret = rproc_prepare_device(rproc);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_err(dev, "can't prepare rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
> >> + goto disable_iommu;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> ret = rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(rproc);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> dev_err(dev, "can't load resource table: %d\n", ret);
> >> @@ -1990,6 +1997,13 @@ int rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> /* clean up all acquired resources */
> >> rproc_resource_cleanup(rproc);
> >>
> >> + /* Release HW resources if needed */
> >> + ret = rproc_unprepare_device(rproc);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + atomic_inc(&rproc->power);
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> rproc_disable_iommu(rproc);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> index b325d28f627c..bf50d79b1f09 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> @@ -413,9 +413,6 @@ static int stm32_rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const
> >> struct firmware *fw)
> >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - ret = stm32_rproc_parse_memory_regions(rproc);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >>
> >> if (ddata->trproc)
> >> ret = rproc_tee_get_rsc_table(ddata->trproc);
> >> @@ -580,6 +577,12 @@ static int stm32_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>
> >> return reset_control_assert(ddata->hold_boot);
> >> }
> >> +static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +{
> >> + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "%s: %d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> >> +
> >> + return stm32_rproc_parse_memory_regions(rproc);
> >> +}
> >>
> >> static int stm32_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> @@ -717,6 +720,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> static struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = {
> >> .start = stm32_rproc_start,
> >> .stop = stm32_rproc_stop,
> >> + .prepare = stm32_rproc_prepare,
> >> .attach = stm32_rproc_attach,
> >> .detach = stm32_rproc_detach,
> >> .kick = stm32_rproc_kick,
> >> @@ -921,10 +925,6 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>
> >> if (state == M4_STATE_CRUN) {
> >> rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
> >> -
> >> - ret = stm32_rproc_parse_memory_regions(rproc);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - goto free_resources;
> >> }
> >>
> >> rproc->has_iommu = false;
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc: virtio: set to vring address to
> >> FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY on free
> >>
> >> The resource table vring structure is cleaned on free. But value is set
> >> to 0. This value is considered as a valid address. Set the value
> >> to FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY instead.
> >> This is needed to allow to reattach to an autonomous firmware.
> >> An alternative would be to save the resource table before updating it.
> >> On free the value would be reset to initial value.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index f177561b8863..5b5de4db3981 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ void rproc_free_vring(struct rproc_vring *rvring)
> >> */
> >> if (rproc->table_ptr) {
> >> rsc = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + rvring->rvdev->rsc_offset;
> >> - rsc->vring[idx].da = 0;
> >> + rsc->vring[idx].da = FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY;
> >> rsc->vring[idx].notifyid = -1;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

Next message: akpm: "mmotm 2021-02-08-15-44 uploaded"
Previous message: Lyude Paul: "[RFC v4 11/11] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Add basic DPCD backlight support for nouveau"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]