Dear Tomasz,
Thank you for your comments.
On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 19:25 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Frederic,
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:14:15AM +0800, Frederic Chen wrote:
> > Dear Tomasz,
> >
> > I appreciate your comment. It is very helpful for us.
> >
>
> You're welcome. Thanks for replying to all the comments. I'll skip those
> resolved in my reply to keep the message shorter.
>
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 18:48 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > Hi Frederic,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:45 PM Frederic Chen <frederic.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > +
> > > > + timestamp = ktime_get_ns();
> > >
> > > This timestamp is unused.
> >
> > This line will be removed in the next patch.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < MTK_DIP_VIDEO_NODE_ID_TOTAL_NUM; i++) {
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev_buffer *dev_buf = job_info->buf_map[i];
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!dev_buf) {
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + } else {
> > >
> > > No need to put this code under else.
> >
> > I got it.
> >
> > >
> > > > + dev_buf->vbb.vb2_buf.timestamp = ktime_get_ns();
> > >
> > > Did you mean to use the timestamp variable here?
> >
> > I would like to remove timestamp and still use
> > dev_buf->vbb.vb2_buf.timestamp directly.
> >
>
> That would result in buffers from different queues having different
> timestamps.
>
> However, this is a mem2mem device, so we shouldn't assign timestamps
> here. We should copy the timestamp from the matching input buffer. I
> missed that before, sorry.
I will copy the raw input buffer's timestamps to the mdp 0 and mdp 1
buffer's ones.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > > + dev_buf->buffer_usage = node->dev_q.buffer_usage;
> > >
> > > There should be no buffer_usage, but rather separate queue for each usage.
> >
> > I will remove mtk_dip_dev_buffer.buffer_usage and
> > mtk_dip_dev_queue.buffer_usage.
> >
> > May I add the dma port information (DMA port selection hint) in each
> > video node's setting (mtk_dip_video_device_desc) so that we can retrieve
> > the hint when we need to pass the buffer to co-processor as following:
> >
> >
> > static int fill_ipi_img_param(struct mtk_dip_pipe *dip_pipe,
> > struct img_image_buffer *img,
> > struct mtk_dip_dev_buffer *dev_buf,
> > char *buf_name)
> > {
> > struct mtk_dip_video_device *vdo_dev;
> > // ...
> > vdo_dev = mtk_dip_vbq_to_node(dev_buf->vbb.vb2_buf.vb2_queue);
> > /* image parameter will be passed to firmware*/
> > img->usage = vdo_dev->desc->dma_hint;
> > // ...
> > }
> >
>
> Yes, that sounds sensible, but I'm not sure "hint" is a good name here,
> because the purpose is precisely defined, not just a hint. Perhaps
> better to call it something like "dma_port"?
>
Yes, I would like to use "dma_port" since it is better.
> >
> > >
> > > > + dev_buf->rotation = node->dev_q.rotation;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (desc->smem_alloc) {
> > > > + dev_buf->scp_daddr =
> > > > + mtk_dip_smem_iova_to_phys
> > > > + (dip_pipe->smem_alloc_dev,
> > > > + dev_buf->isp_daddr);
> > >
> > > Isn't this overly wrapped? The first argument should fit in the second line.
> >
> > Do you mean the modification like this:
> >
> > dev_buf->scp_daddr = mtk_dip_smem_iova_to_phys
> > (dip_pipe->smem_alloc_dev,
> > dev_buf->isp_daddr);
>
> Almost. The wrapped lines should be aligned to the right as much as
> possible, so it would be more like:
>
> dev_buf->scp_daddr = mtk_dip_smem_iova_to_phys(
> dip_pipe->smem_alloc_dev,
> dev_buf->isp_daddr);
>
I got it.
> [snip]
> > > > +
> > > > + if (fjob->sequence == -1) {
> > > > + pr_err("%s: Invalid cmdq_cb_data(%p)\n",
> > > > + __func__, data);
> > > > + ipi_fparam = NULL;
> > >
> > > As far as I can see, we always get the data we explicitly gave to the cmdq
> > > driver together with the callback function, so it sounds like we shouldn't
> > > be able to get invalid data here.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure if we can always trust CMDQ callback since we had
> > suffered from an CMDQ bug that return an invalid address before.
> >
>
> Hmm, but these values don't really go to the CMDQ hardware or firmware,
> right? It's just the kernel CMDQ driver that looks the data pointer in
> its internal state. That would be a bug similar to the workqueue
> framework giving a bad pointer to the work function.
>
> Also, checking for -1 alone doesn't really help us too much, because we
> could for example get a pointer to some memory filled with random
> values, in case of such bug.
>
> Perhaps we should inspect the CMDQ driver design instead to make sure
> it's impossible to receive a bad pointer from it.
>
I agree with you. I will remove the fjob->sequence check codes.
> [snip]
>
> > > > +
> > > > + if (WARN_ONCE(!mdpcb_work, "%s: frame_no(%d) is lost",
> > > > + __func__, frameparam->frame_no))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + INIT_WORK(&mdpcb_work->frame_work, mdp_cb_worker);
> > > > + mdpcb_work->frameparams = frameparam;
> > > > + if (data.sta != CMDQ_CB_NORMAL)
> > > > + mdpcb_work->frameparams->state = FRAME_STATE_HW_TIMEOUT;
> > > > +
> > > > + queue_work(dip_hw->mdpcb_workqueue, &mdpcb_work->frame_work);
> > >
> > > Looking at mdp_cb_worker() and mtk_dip_notify() called by it, after fixing
> > > the locking to use spinlocks rather than mutexes and remove some dynamic
> > > allocations pointed out in other comments, we could just run them in atomic
> > > context, without the need for this workqueue.
> >
> > I will re-design this part to support the function to be run in
> > atomic context.
> >
> > I would like to discuss the error handling in this function
> > for the next patch. When we get FRAME_STATE_HW_TIMEOUT, is it
> > suitable to trigger a work to notify SCP with scp_ipi_send() to
> > dump debug messages in further? (Can this kind of debugging
> > function be upstream?)
> >
>
> Yes, we should be able to have something like that.
>
> > >
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void dip_vpu_handler(void *data, unsigned int len, void *priv)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct img_frameparam *framejob;
> > > > + struct img_ipi_frameparam *frameparam;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_hw *dip_hw;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev *dip_dev;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + u32 num;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (WARN_ONCE(!data, "%s: failed due to NULL data\n", __func__))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + frameparam = (struct img_ipi_frameparam *)data;
> > > > + framejob = dip_create_framejob(frameparam->index);
> > >
> > > Rather than creating this dynamically, it should be already created. The
> > > reason you have the priv argument to this function is that you can have the
> > > SCP driver give to you a pointer to some struct that you gave to it when
> > > calling scp_ipi_register(). That struct should have a list of valid VPU jobs
> > > and here you should iterate through that list and find a matching job or
> > > fail if there is no matching one. (We need to validate here, because we
> > > can't trust the values coming from the firmware.)
> >
> > May I embedded img_frameparam into the extended media_request object
> > so that it can be managed with media_request objects?
> >
> > struct mtk_dip_request {
> > struct media_request request;
> > struct mtk_dip_pipe_job_info job_info;
> > struct mtk_dip_hw_work dip_work;
> > struct img_frameparam job;
> > struct mtk_dip_hw_mdpcb_timeout_work timeout_work;
> > };
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I think it would make sense indeed.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +static int dip_runner_func(void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct img_frameparam *framejob;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_hw *dip_hw;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev *dip_dev;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_hw_user_id *user_id;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + bool found;
> > > > + u32 queuecnt, num;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + dip_hw = (struct mtk_dip_hw *)data;
> > > > + dip_dev = mtk_dip_hw_to_dev(dip_hw);
> > > > +
> > > > + while (1) {
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queuelock, flags);
> > > > + queuecnt = dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queue_cnt;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queuelock,
> > > > + flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout
> > > > + (dip_hw->dip_runner_thread.wq,
> > > > + queuecnt || kthread_should_stop(),
> > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(DIP_COMPOSER_THREAD_TIMEOUT));
> > >
> > > Checking queuecnt here is also wrong. Please check my comment to another
> > > wait_event_* in this patch.
> > >
> > > Also the interruptibility and timeout don't make sense here, because we just
> > > want to keep waiting unless something shows up or the kthread is forcefully
> > > woken up for stopping.
> > >
> > > However, we probably want it to be freezable(), so that we don't have to
> > > bring the thread down and up on suspend/resume.
> >
> >
> > I would like to fix it as following:
> >
> >
> > static bool mtk_dip_hw_qce_queuecnt(struct mtk_dip_hw *dip_hw)
> > {
> > int queuecnt;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queuelock, flags);
> > queuecnt = dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queue_cnt;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dip_hw->dip_gcejoblist.queuelock,
> >
> > return queuecnt;
> > }
> >
> > static int dip_runner_func(void *data)
> > {
> >
> > //...
> > set_freezable();
> > while(1) {
> > wait_event_freezable((dip_hw->dip_runner_thread.wq,
> > mtk_dip_hw_qce_queuecnt() ||
> > kthread_should_stop());
> >
> > if (kthread_should_stop())
> > break;
> >
> > // Call MDP/GCE API to do HW excecution
> > // ...
> >
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +
> > > > +free_work_list:
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s, free: frame_no(%d),idx(0x%x),worklist cnt(%d),composing num(%d)\n",
> > > > + __func__, dip_work->frameparams.frame_no,
> > > > + dip_work->frameparams.index, len, num);
> > > > +
> > > > + kfree(dip_work);
> > >
> > > We haven't allocated this object and so we shouldn't free it here. The layer
> > > that allocated it should receive it back and free. (But we probably don't
> > > need to allocate it dynamically as per my other comments.)
> > >
> >
> > May I also merge dip_work into mtk_dip_request?
> >
> > struct mtk_dip_request {
> > struct media_request request;
> > struct mtk_dip_pipe_job_info job_info;
> > struct mtk_dip_hw_work dip_work;
> > struct img_frameparam job;
> > struct mtk_dip_hw_mdpcb_timeout_work timeout_work;
> > };
> >
>
> Yes, it should indeed make sense.
>
> >
> > > Also a general note - a work can be queued only once. This means that
> > > current code races when two dip_works are attempted to be queued very
> > > quickly one after another (or even at the same time from different threads).
> > >
> > > I can think of two potential options for fixing this:
> > >
> > > 1) Loop in the work function until there is nothing to queue to the hardware
> > > anymore - but this needs tricky synchronization, because there is still
> > > short time at the end of the work function when a new dip_work could be
> > > added.
> > >
> > > 2) Change this to a kthread that just keeps running in a loop waiting for
> > > some available dip_work to show up and then sending it to the firmware.
> > > This should be simpler, as the kthread shouldn't have a chance to miss
> > > any dip_work queued.
> > >
> > > I'm personally in favor of option 2, as it should simplify the
> > > synchronization.
> > >
> >
> > I would like to re-design this part with a kthread in the next patch.
>
> Actually I missed another option. We could have 1 work_struct for 1
> request and then we could keep using a workqueue. Perhaps that could be
> simpler than a kthread.
>
> Actually, similar approach could be used for the dip_runner_func.
> Instead of having a kthread looping, we could just have another
> workqueue and 1 dip_runner_work per 1 request. Then we wouldn't need to
> do the waiting loop ourselves anymore.
>
> Does it make sense?
Yes, it make sense. Let me summarize the modification about the flow.
First, we will have two work_struct in mtk_dip_request.
struct mtk_dip_request {
struct media_request request;
//...
/* Prepare DIP part hardware configurtion */
struct mtk_dip_hw_submit_work submit_work;
/* Replace dip_running thread jobs*/
struct mtk_dip_hw_composing_work composing_work;
/* Only for composing error handling */
struct mtk_dip_hw_mdpcb_timeout_work timeout_work;
};
Second, the overall flow of handling each request is :
1. mtk_dip_hw_enqueue calls queue_work() to put submit_work into its
workqueue
2. submit_work sends IMG_IPI_FRAME command to SCP to prepare DIP
hardware configuration
3. dip_scp_handler receives the IMG_IPI_FRAME result from SCP
4. dip_scp_handler calls queue_work() to put composing_work (instead
of original dip_running thread jobs) into its workqueue
5. composing_work calls dip_mdp_cmdq_send() to finish the mdp part tasks
6. dip_mdp_cb_func() trigged by MDP driver calls vb2_buffer_done to
return the buffer (no workqueue required here)
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > + buf->buffer.iova = sg_dma_address(buf->table.sgl);
> > > > + buf->tuning_buf.iova = buf->buffer.iova +
> > > > + DIP_TUNING_OFFSET;
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s: buf(%d), pa(%p), iova(%p)\n",
> > > > + __func__, i, buf->buffer.pa, buf->buffer.iova);
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s: config_data(%d), pa(%p), iova(%p)\n",
> > > > + __func__, i, buf->config_data.pa, buf->config_data.va);
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s: tuning_buf(%d), pa(%p), iova(%p)\n",
> > > > + __func__, i, buf->tuning_buf.pa, buf->tuning_buf.iova);
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s: frameparam(%d), pa(%p), iova(%p)\n",
> > > > + __func__, i, buf->frameparam.pa, buf->frameparam.va);
> > > > +
> > > > + list_add_tail(&buf->list_entry,
> > > > + &dip_hw->dip_freebufferlist.queue);
> > > > + dip_hw->dip_freebufferlist.queue_cnt++;
> > > > + kfree(pages);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > But actually, why aren't these buffers managed by VB2?
> > >
> >
> > I would like to manage the buffer with VB2, but I'm not sure what is
> > the right way to do that.
> >
> > These are DIP internal working buffers. The buffers are not read or
> > written by user application. In this case, could I add a meta capture
> > video device to manage them or integrate the buffers with tuning meta
> > output buffer directly?
> >
>
> Ah, if these are internal buffers, then I guess we indeed need to
> allocate them ourselves.
I got it.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > + frameparam.state = FRAME_STATE_INIT;
> > > > + dip_send(dip_hw->vpu_pdev, SCP_IPI_DIP_INIT,
> > > > + (void *)&frameparam, sizeof(frameparam), 0);
> > >
> > > Is the call above synchronous? If not, don't we need to wait here for SCP to
> > > initialize?
> > >
> >
> > No, it is not synchronous when passing 0 in the latest parameter. We
> > would like to improve it by using scp_ipi_send() directly instead of
> > dip_send(), and wait for the ack from SCP with 2ms timeout setting.
> >
> > ret = scp_ipi_send(dip_hw->scp_pdev SCP_IPI_DIP_INIT,
> > &frameparam, sizeof(frameparam), 2);
> >
>
> 2ms could likely fail here quite often, because even kernel code can be
> preempted. We should have something like 200ms here, just to avoid
> blocking indefinitely, but long enough not to happen even during high
> system load.
>
I got it.
> [snip]
>
> >
> > > > + framework->frameparams.state = FRAME_STATE_INIT;
> > > > + framework->frameparams.frame_no =
> > > > + atomic_inc_return(&dip_hw->dip_enque_cnt);
> > >
> > > It sounds like the struct passed as the frameparams argument to this
> > > function and framework->frameparams should be two different structs.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure if I understand it. Would you like to elaborate on this
> > point?
> >
> > I would like to merge mtk_dip_hw_enqueue and mtk_dip_pipe_job_start so
> > that we can configure the framework->frameparams in a single function.
> >
>
> Ah, that comment might have been added before I noticed that the
> functions can be merged. Forgot to remove, sorry. Please ignore.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +static int __maybe_unused mtk_dip_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev *dip_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (atomic_read(&dip_dev->dip_hw.dip_user_cnt) > 0) {
> > > > + mtk_dip_hw_set_clk(&dip_dev->dip_hw, false);
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev, "%s: disable clock\n",
> > > > + __func__);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Don't we need to do something to prevent the driver from scheduling next
> > > frames here and wait for the hardware to finish processing current frame
> > > here?
> > >
> >
> > I will add some design to handle this case. Could we add a
> > suspend variable in mtk_dip_hw and check it in submit work kthread?
> >
>
> Actually, with the other changes, the kthread would have been frozen for
> us at this point, so maybe there isn't anything to do here! :)
>
> OR, if we change the kthread to a workqueue (as per my other comment
> above), we could make the workqueue freezable (by adding WQ_FREEZABLE to
> the flags argument at creation time) and it would be frozen for us after
> finishing current work struct.
>
Thank you for the advice.
I would like to use workqueue with WQ_FREEZABLE.
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int __maybe_unused mtk_dip_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev *dip_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (atomic_read(&dip_dev->dip_hw.dip_user_cnt) > 0) {
> > > > + mtk_dip_hw_set_clk(&dip_dev->dip_hw, true);
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_dev->pdev->dev, "%s: enable clock\n",
> > > > + __func__);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Don't we need to kick off the hardware here to continue processing from
> > > the next frame?
> > >
> >
> > I will add some design to handle this case.
> >
>
> As per above, making the kthreads/workqueues freezable actually should
> solve the problem.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +static int mtk_dip_subdev_close(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > > + struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_pipe *dip_pipe = mtk_dip_subdev_to_pipe(sd);
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_dev *dip_dev =
> > > > + dev_get_drvdata(&dip_pipe->dip_dev->pdev->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(&dip_pipe->dip_dev->pdev->dev,
> > > > + "%s:%s: pipe(%d) disconnect to dip_hw\n",
> > > > + __func__, dip_pipe->desc->name,
> > > > + dip_pipe->desc->id);
> > > > +
> > > > + return mtk_dip_hw_disconnect(&dip_dev->dip_hw);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > We shouldn't do any hardware operations just at subdev open or close. Those
> > > should happen once the streaming actually starts.
> > >
> > > Userspace is expected to open device nodes just to query them and that
> > > shouldn't have any side effects.
> > >
> > > In general I don't see why we actually should even do anything in subdev ops
> > > in this driver. The subdev is only exposed to bridge all the video nodes
> > > together and any control is done via either video ioctls or metadata
> > > buffers.
> > >
> >
> > I will move the hardware operation to streamon. We call rproc_boot() to
> > load frimware in mtk_dip_hw_connect(), should it be moved to streamon,
> > too?
> >
>
> I think that would normally be done in runtime PM callbacks, with
> autosuspend delay enabled to avoid continuous power-off and on
> repeateadly.
>
> Then, when there is a request to queue, the driver would call
> pm_runtime_get_sync() and when a request completes,
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>
I got it. I will put it in PM callbacks and
use pm_runtime_get_sync() and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() in
request handling flow.
> [snip]
>
> > > > +static void mtk_dip_node_to_v4l2(struct mtk_dip_pipe *dip_pipe,
> > > > + u32 idx,
> > > > + struct video_device *vdev,
> > > > + struct v4l2_format *f)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u32 cap;
> > > > + struct mtk_dip_video_device *node = &dip_pipe->nodes[idx];
> > > > +
> > > > + cap = mtk_dip_node_get_v4l2_cap(dip_pipe, node);
> > > > + vdev->ioctl_ops = node->desc->ops;
> > > > + vdev->device_caps = V4L2_CAP_STREAMING | cap;
> > >
> > > Why not just have mtk_dip_node_get_v4l2_cap() include V4L2_CAP_STREAMING in
> > > the return value?
> > >
> >
> > I would like to set the V4L2_CAP_STREAMING in node->desc->cap directly.
> >
> > vdev->device_caps = node->desc->caps;
> >
>
> Sure, that's also good.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
Sincerely,
Frederic Chen
