On 12/05/2017 07:46 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 01 Dec 06:50 PST 2017, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>
>> hello Bjorn,
>>
>> Sorry for these late remarks/questions
>>
>
> No worries, I'm happy to see you reading the patch!
>
>>
>> On 11/30/2017 02:16 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> [..]
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
> [..]
>>> @@ -785,17 +785,17 @@ static int rproc_probe_subdevices(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>
>>> unroll_registration:
>>> list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse(subdev, &rproc->subdevs, node)
>>> - subdev->remove(subdev);
>>> + subdev->remove(subdev, false);
>> Why do you need to do a non graceful remove in this case? This could
>> lead to side effect like memory leakage...
>>
>
> Regardless of this being true or false resources should always be
> reclaimed.
>
> The reason for introducing this is that the modem in the Qualcomm
> platforms implements persistent storage and it's preferred to tell it to
> flush the latest data to the storage server (on the Linux side) before
> pulling the plug. But in the case of a firmware crash this mechanism
> will not be operational and there's no point in attempting this
> "graceful shutdown".
I understand your usecase for Qualcomm, but in rproc_probe_subdevices
there is not crash of the remote firmware , so remove should be graceful.
>
> [..]
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> index 44e630eb3d94..20a9467744ea 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ struct rproc_subdev {
>>> struct list_head node;
>>>
>>> int (*probe)(struct rproc_subdev *subdev);
>>> - void (*remove)(struct rproc_subdev *subdev);
>>> + void (*remove)(struct rproc_subdev *subdev, bool graceful);
>> What about adding a new ops instead of a parameter, like a recovery
>> callback?
>>
>
> I think that for symmetry purposes it should be probe/remove in both
> code paths. A possible alternative to the proposal would be to introduce
> an operation "request_shutdown()" the would be called in the proposed
> graceful code path.
>
>
> However, in the Qualcomm SMD and GLINK (conceptually equivalent to
> virtio-rpmsg) it is possible to open and close communication channels
> and it's conceivable to see that the graceful case would close all
> channels cleanly while the non-graceful case would just remove the rpmsg
> devices (and leave the channel states/memory as is).
>
> In this case a "request_shutdown()" would complicate things, compared to
> the boolean.
>
I would be more for a specific ops that inform sub-dev on a crash. This
would allow sub-dev to perform specific action (for instance dump) and
store crash information, then on remove, sub_dev would perform specific
action.
This could be something like "trigger_recovery" that is propagated to
the sub-dev.
That would sound more flexible from my point of view.
Regards
Arnaud
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
