Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 3EC7BC433F2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Remove the pm_lock
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     evgreen@chromium.org, swboyd@chromium.org, mka@chromium.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200416173145.v2.1.I2d44fc0053d019f239527a4e5829416714b7e299@changeid>
 <20200416173145.v2.2.I295cb72bc5334a2af80313cbe97cb5c9dcb1442c@changeid>
From:   Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <a332c492-4d1a-6286-51d3-24430f460ff4@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:37:24 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200416173145.v2.2.I295cb72bc5334a2af80313cbe97cb5c9dcb1442c@changeid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 4/17/2020 6:02 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> It has been postulated that the pm_lock is bad for performance because
> a CPU currently running rpmh_flush() could block other CPUs from
> coming out of idle.  Similarly CPUs coming out of / going into idle
> all need to contend with each other for the spinlock just to update
> the variable tracking who's in PM.
>
> Let's optimize this a bit.  Specifically:
>
> - Use a count rather than a bitmask.  This is faster to access and
>    also means we can use the atomic_inc_return() function to really
>    detect who the last one to enter PM was.
> - Accept that it's OK if we race and are doing the flush (because we
>    think we're last) while another CPU is coming out of idle.  As long
>    as we block that CPU if/when it tries to do an active-only transfer
>    we're OK.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Always grab drv->lock first to ensure lock ordering.
> - Grab the cache_lock in rpmh_flush().
> - Comments about why num_online_cpus() is OK.
> - Return NOTIFY_DONE for things we don't care about.
> - Use trylock to avoid spinning in CPU_PM code.
> - !rpmh_flush() should have been rpmh_flush(), so we were alwys failing.
> - Account for CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED not being called if we return NOTIFY_BAD.
>
>   drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h | 13 +++---
>   drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c      | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c          | 22 +++++++---
>   3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> index dba8510c0669..f378c0f5e66d 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ struct rpmh_ctrlr {
>    * @num_tcs:            Number of TCSes in this DRV.
>    * @rsc_pm:             CPU PM notifier for controller.
>    *                      Used when solver mode is not present.
> - * @cpus_entered_pm:    CPU mask for cpus in idle power collapse.
> + * @cpus_in_pm:         Number of CPUs not in idle power collapse.
>    *                      Used when solver mode is not present.
>    * @tcs:                TCS groups.
>    * @tcs_in_use:         S/W state of the TCS; only set for ACTIVE_ONLY
> @@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ struct rpmh_ctrlr {
>    *                      (aka the drv->lock) to mark one freed.
>    * @lock:               Synchronize state of the controller.  If you will be
>    *                      grabbing this lock and a tcs_lock at the same time,
> - *                      grab the tcs_lock first so we always have a
> - *                      consistent lock ordering.
> - * @pm_lock:            Synchronize during PM notifications.
> - *                      Used when solver mode is not present.
> + *                      grab the this lock first so we always have a
> + *                      consistent lock ordering.  If RPMH's cache lock will
> + *                      also be held, the order is: drv->lock, cache_lock,
> + *                      tcs_lock.
>    * @client:             Handle to the DRV's client.
>    */
>   struct rsc_drv {
> @@ -121,11 +121,10 @@ struct rsc_drv {
>   	int id;
>   	int num_tcs;
>   	struct notifier_block rsc_pm;
> -	struct cpumask cpus_entered_pm;
> +	atomic_t cpus_in_pm;
>   	struct tcs_group tcs[TCS_TYPE_NR];
>   	DECLARE_BITMAP(tcs_in_use, MAX_TCS_NR);
>   	spinlock_t lock;
> -	spinlock_t pm_lock;
>   	struct rpmh_ctrlr client;
>   };
>   
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> index a9e15699f55f..5ef4dd9c72ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> @@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ static int tcs_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
>   	if (IS_ERR(tcs))
>   		return PTR_ERR(tcs);
>   
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&tcs->lock, flags);
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
>   	spin_lock(&drv->lock);
> +	spin_lock(&tcs->lock);
>   	/*
>   	 * The h/w does not like if we send a request to the same address,
>   	 * when one is already in-flight or being processed.
> @@ -612,13 +613,20 @@ static int tcs_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
>   		write_tcs_reg_sync(drv, RSC_DRV_CMD_WAIT_FOR_CMPL, tcs_id, 0);
>   		enable_tcs_irq(drv, tcs_id, true);
>   	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Though we grabbed drv->lock first (to keep lock ordering consistent),
> +	 * we release it first.  This is fine as long as we don't try to grab
> +	 * it again until we release our tcs->lock.
> +	 */

In [1]  we removed tcs->lock and are only using drv->lock , this should 
help avoid ABBA/deadlocks since we are operating on single lock.

Although it needs rebase on latest tip. Let me know i can resend the 
patch/if you want to club in this change (removing tcs->lock part) i am ok.

>   	spin_unlock(&drv->lock);
>   
>   	__tcs_buffer_write(drv, tcs_id, 0, msg);
>   	__tcs_set_trigger(drv, tcs_id, true);
>   
>   done_write:
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tcs->lock, flags);
> +	spin_unlock(&tcs->lock);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> @@ -741,6 +749,8 @@ int rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
>    * SLEEP and WAKE sets. If AMCs are busy, controller can not enter
>    * power collapse, so deny from the last cpu's pm notification.
>    *
> + * Context: Must be called with the drv->lock held.
> + *
>    * Return:
>    * * False		- AMCs are idle
>    * * True		- AMCs are busy
> @@ -755,9 +765,6 @@ static bool rpmh_rsc_ctrlr_is_busy(struct rsc_drv *drv)
>   	 * dedicated TCS for active state use, then re-purposed wake TCSes
>   	 * should be checked for not busy, because we used wake TCSes for
>   	 * active requests in this case.
> -	 *
> -	 * Since this is called from the last cpu, need not take drv or tcs
> -	 * lock before checking tcs_is_free().
>   	 */
>   	if (!tcs->num_tcs)
>   		tcs = &drv->tcs[WAKE_TCS];
> @@ -792,36 +799,57 @@ static int rpmh_rsc_cpu_pm_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>   {
>   	struct rsc_drv *drv = container_of(nfb, struct rsc_drv, rsc_pm);
>   	int ret = NOTIFY_OK;
> -
> -	spin_lock(&drv->pm_lock);
> +	int cpus_in_pm;
>   
>   	switch (action) {
>   	case CPU_PM_ENTER:
> -		cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &drv->cpus_entered_pm);
> -
> -		if (!cpumask_equal(&drv->cpus_entered_pm, cpu_online_mask))
> -			goto exit;
> +		cpus_in_pm = atomic_inc_return(&drv->cpus_in_pm);
> +		/*
> +		 * NOTE: comments for num_online_cpus() point out that it's
> +		 * only a snapshot so we need to be careful. It should be OK
> +		 * for us to use, though.  It's important for us not to miss
> +		 * if we're the last CPU going down so it would only be a
> +		 * problem if a CPU went offline right after we did the check
> +		 * AND that CPU was not idle AND that CPU was the last non-idle
> +		 * CPU. That can't happen. CPUs would have to come out of idle
> +		 * before the CPU could go offline.
> +		 */
> +		if (cpus_in_pm < num_online_cpus())
> +			return NOTIFY_OK;
>   		break;
>   	case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED:
>   	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
> -		cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &drv->cpus_entered_pm);
> -		goto exit;
> +		atomic_dec(&drv->cpus_in_pm);
> +		return NOTIFY_OK;
> +	default:
> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
>   	}
>   
> -	ret = rpmh_rsc_ctrlr_is_busy(drv);
> -	if (ret) {
> +	/*
> +	 * It's likely we're on the last CPU. Grab the drv->lock and write
> +	 * out the sleep/wake commands to RPMH hardware. Grabbing the lock
> +	 * means that if we race with another CPU coming up we are still
> +	 * guaranteed to be safe. If another CPU came up just after we checked
> +	 * and has grabbed thelock or started an active transfer then we'll
thelock, the lock. one space inbetween.
> +	 * notice we're busy and abort. If another CPU comes up after we start
> +	 * flushing it will be blocked from starting an active transfer until
> +	 * we're done flushing. If another CPU starts an active transfer after
> +	 * we release the lock we're still OK because we're no longer the last
> +	 * CPU.
> +	 */
> +	if (spin_trylock(&drv->lock)) {
> +		if (rpmh_rsc_ctrlr_is_busy(drv) || rpmh_flush(&drv->client))
> +			ret = NOTIFY_BAD;
if (rpmh_rsc_ctrlr_is_busy(drv) || rpmh_flush(&drv->client)) {
         if (cpus_in_pm < num_online_cpus())
             ret = NOTIFY_OK;
         else
             ret = NOTIFY_BAD;

}

if rpmh_flush() failed because another CPU woken up and started rpmh 
transfer, we are ok to power down current cpu by returning NOTIFY_OK.

Can change this to return error only when last cpu failed to flush, like 
above.

> +		spin_unlock(&drv->lock);
> +	} else {
> +		/* Another CPU must be up */
>   		ret = NOTIFY_BAD;
> -		goto exit;
>   	}
>   
> -	ret = rpmh_flush(&drv->client);
> -	if (ret)
> -		ret = NOTIFY_BAD;
> -	else
> -		ret = NOTIFY_OK;
> +	/* If we reject we won't be called w/ CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED */
> +	if (ret == NOTIFY_BAD)
> +		atomic_dec(&drv->cpus_in_pm);
>   
> -exit:
> -	spin_unlock(&drv->pm_lock);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> @@ -965,7 +993,6 @@ static int rpmh_rsc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	solver_config = solver_config >> DRV_HW_SOLVER_SHIFT;
>   	if (!solver_config) {
>   		drv->rsc_pm.notifier_call = rpmh_rsc_cpu_pm_callback;
> -		spin_lock_init(&drv->pm_lock);
>   		cpu_pm_register_notifier(&drv->rsc_pm);
>   	}
>   
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> index 3abbb08cd6e1..3ba08bd14fa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> @@ -445,13 +445,21 @@ static int send_single(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr, enum rpmh_state state,
>   int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr)
>   {
>   	struct cache_req *p;
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Currently rpmh_flush() is only called when we think we're running
> +	 * on the last processor.  If the lock is busy it means another
> +	 * processor is up and it's better to abort than spin.
> +	 */
> +	if (!spin_trylock(&ctrlr->cache_lock))
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +
>   	if (!ctrlr->dirty) {
>   		pr_debug("Skipping flush, TCS has latest data.\n");
> -		return 0;
> +		goto exit;
>   	}
>   
>   	/* Invalidate the TCSes first to avoid stale data */
> @@ -460,7 +468,7 @@ int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr)
>   	/* First flush the cached batch requests */
>   	ret = flush_batch(ctrlr);
>   	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +		goto exit;
>   
>   	list_for_each_entry(p, &ctrlr->cache, list) {
>   		if (!is_req_valid(p)) {
> @@ -471,16 +479,18 @@ int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr)
>   		ret = send_single(ctrlr, RPMH_SLEEP_STATE, p->addr,
>   				  p->sleep_val);
>   		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> +			goto exit;
>   		ret = send_single(ctrlr, RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE, p->addr,
>   				  p->wake_val);
>   		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> +			goto exit;
>   	}
>   
>   	ctrlr->dirty = false;
>   
> -	return 0;
> +exit:
> +	spin_unlock(&ctrlr->cache_lock);
> +	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   /**
[1]https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1044697/

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation