On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 6:09 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2021/8/28 3:09, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:38 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 2021/8/27 8:04, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 1:22 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> Btw, I've been working on [1] cleaning up the one-off deferred probe > >>>>>>> solution that we have for amba devices. That causes a bunch of other > >>>>>>> headaches. Your patch 3/3 takes us further in the wrong direction by > >>>>>>> adding more reasons for delaying the addition of the device. > >>>> Hi Saravana, I try the link[1], but with it, there is a crash when boot > >>>> (qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a15), > > I'm assuming it's this one? > > arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts > > I use arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15-tc1.dts. > > qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a15 -dtb vexpress-v2p-ca15-tc1.dtb -cpu > cortex-a15 -smp 2 -m size=3G -kernel zImage -rtc base=localtime -initrd > initrd-arm32 -append 'console=ttyAMA0 cma=0 kfence.sample_interval=0 > earlyprintk debug ' -device virtio-net-device,netdev=net8 -netdev > type=tap,id=net8,script=/etc/qemu-ifup,downscript=/etc/qemu-ifdown > -nographic > > > > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> It's hard to make sense of the logs. Looks like two different threads > >>> might be printing to the log at the same time? Can you please enable > >>> the config that prints the thread ID (forgot what it's called) and > >>> collect this again? With what I could tell the crash seems to be > >>> happening somewhere in platform_match(), but that's not related to > >>> this patch at all? > >> Can you reproduce it? it is very likely related(without your patch, the > >> boot is fine), > > Sorry, I haven't ever setup qemu and booted vexpress. Thanks for your help. > > > >> the NULL ptr is about serio, it is registed from amba driver. > >> > >> ambakmi_driver_init > >> > >> -- amba_kmi_probe > >> > >> -- __serio_register_port > > Thanks for the pointer. I took a look at the logs and the code. It's > > very strange. As you can see from the backtrace, platform_match() is > > being called for the device_add() from serio_handle_event(). But the > > device that gets added there is on the serio_bus which obviously > > should be using the serio_bus_match. > Yes, I am confused too. > > > >> +Dmitry and input maillist, is there some known issue about serio ? > >> > >> I add some debug, the full log is attached. > >> > >> [ 2.958355][ T41] input: AT Raw Set 2 keyboard as > >> /devices/platform/bus@8000000/bus@8000000:motherboard-bus/bus@8000000:motherboard-bus:iofpga-bus@300000000/1c060000.kmi/serio0/input/input0 > >> [ 2.977441][ T41] serio serio1: pdev c1e05508, pdev->name (null), > >> drv c1090fc0, drv->name vexpress-reset > > Based on the logs you added, it's pretty clear we are getting to > > platform_match(). It's also strange that the drv->name is > > vexpress-reset > ... > > > >> [ 3.003113][ T41] Backtrace: > >> [ 3.003451][ T41] [<c0560bb4>] (strcmp) from [<c0646358>] (platform_match+0xdc/0xf0) > >> [ 3.003963][ T41] [<c064627c>] (platform_match) from [<c06437d4>] (__device_attach_driver+0x3c/0xf4) > >> [ 3.004769][ T41] [<c0643798>] (__device_attach_driver) from [<c0641180>] (bus_for_each_drv+0x68/0xc8) > >> [ 3.005481][ T41] [<c0641118>] (bus_for_each_drv) from [<c0642f40>] (__device_attach+0xf0/0x16c) > >> [ 3.006152][ T41] [<c0642e50>] (__device_attach) from [<c06439d4>] (device_initial_probe+0x1c/0x20) > >> [ 3.006853][ T41] [<c06439b8>] (device_initial_probe) from [<c0642030>] (bus_probe_device+0x94/0x9c) > >> [ 3.007259][ T41] [<c0641f9c>] (bus_probe_device) from [<c063f9cc>] (device_add+0x408/0x8b8) > >> [ 3.007900][ T41] [<c063f5c4>] (device_add) from [<c071c1cc>] (serio_handle_event+0x1b8/0x234) > >> [ 3.008824][ T41] [<c071c014>] (serio_handle_event) from [<c01475a4>] (process_one_work+0x238/0x594) > >> [ 3.009737][ T41] [<c014736c>] (process_one_work) from [<c014795c>] (worker_thread+0x5c/0x5f4) > >> [ 3.010638][ T41] [<c0147900>] (worker_thread) from [<c014feb4>] (kthread+0x178/0x194) > >> [ 3.011496][ T41] [<c014fd3c>] (kthread) from [<c0100150>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24) > >> [ 3.011860][ T41] Exception stack(0xc1675fb0 to 0xc1675ff8) > > But the platform_match() is happening for the device_add() from > > serio_event_handle() that's adding a device to the serio_bus and it > > should be using serio_bus_match(). > > > > I haven't reached any conclusion yet, but my current thought process > > is that it's either: > > 1. My patch is somehow causing list corruption. But I don't directly > > touch any list in my change (other than deleting a list entirely), so > > it's not clear how that would be happening. > > Maybe some concurrent driver load？ > > > 2. Without my patch, these AMBA device's probe would be delayed at > > least until 5 seconds or possibly later. I'm wondering if my patch is > > catching some bad timing assumptions in other code. > > After Rob's patch, It will retry soon. > > commit 039599c92d3b2e73689e8b6e519d653fd4770abb > Author: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed Apr 29 15:58:12 2020 -0500 > > amba: Retry adding deferred devices at late_initcall > > If amba bus devices defer when adding, the amba bus code simply retries > adding the devices every 5 seconds. This doesn't work well as it > completely unsynchronized with starting the init process which can > happen in less than 5 secs. Add a retry during late_initcall. If the > amba devices are added, then deferred probe takes over. If the > dependencies have not probed at this point, then there's no improvement > over previous behavior. To completely solve this, we'd need to retry > after every successful probe as deferred probe does. > > The list_empty() check now happens outside the mutex, but the mutex > wasn't necessary in the first place. > > This needed to use deferred probe instead of fragile initcall ordering > on 32-bit VExpress systems where the apb_pclk has a number of probe > dependencies (vexpress-sysregs, vexpress-config). > > > > > > You might be able to test out theory (2) by DEFERRED_DEVICE_TIMEOUT to > > a much smaller number. Say 500ms or 100ms. If it doesn't crash, it > > doesn't mean it's not (2), but if it does, then we know for sure it's > > (2). > ok, I will try this one, but due to above patch, it may not work. Were you able to find anything more? -Saravana
