I can confirm, with this patch, there is always error loading MFC in
boot log, since FS is not mounted.
-Marian
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 02:31 AM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 06.10.2017 23:30, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> Driver calls request_firmware() whenever the device is opened for the
>>> first time. As the device gets opened and closed, dev->num_inst == 1
>>> is true several times. This is not necessary since the firmware is saved
>>> in the fw_buf. s5p_mfc_load_firmware() copies the buffer returned by
>>> the request_firmware() to dev->fw_buf.
>>>
>>> fw_buf sticks around until it gets released from s5p_mfc_remove(), hence
>>> there is no need to keep requesting firmware and copying it to fw_buf.
>>>
>>> This might have been overlooked when changes are made to free fw_buf from
>>> the device release interface s5p_mfc_release().
>>>
>>> Fix s5p_mfc_load_firmware() to call request_firmware() once and keep state.
>>> Change _probe() to load firmware once fw_buf has been allocated.
>>>
>>> s5p_mfc_open() and it continues to call s5p_mfc_load_firmware() and init
>>> hardware which is the step where firmware is written to the device.
>>>
>>> This addresses the mfc_mutex contention due to repeated request_firmware()
>>> calls from open() in the following circular locking warning:
>>>
>>> [ 552.194115] qtdemux0:sink/2710 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> [ 552.199488] (&dev->mfc_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<bf145544>] s5p_mfc_mmap+0x28/0xd4 [s5p_mfc]
>>> [ 552.207459]
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> [ 552.213264] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: [<c01df2e4>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x44/0xb8
>>> [ 552.220284]
>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>
>>> [ 552.228429]
>>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>> [ 552.235881]
>>> -> #2 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
>>> [ 552.241259] __might_fault+0x80/0xb0
>>> [ 552.245331] filldir64+0xc0/0x2f8
>>> [ 552.249144] call_filldir+0xb0/0x14c
>>> [ 552.253214] ext4_readdir+0x768/0x90c
>>> [ 552.257374] iterate_dir+0x74/0x168
>>> [ 552.261360] SyS_getdents64+0x7c/0x1a0
>>> [ 552.265608] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x28
>>> [ 552.269850]
>>> -> #1 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2){++++}:
>>> [ 552.276180] down_read+0x48/0x90
>>> [ 552.279904] lookup_slow+0x74/0x178
>>> [ 552.283889] walk_component+0x1a4/0x2e4
>>> [ 552.288222] link_path_walk+0x174/0x4a0
>>> [ 552.292555] path_openat+0x68/0x944
>>> [ 552.296541] do_filp_open+0x60/0xc4
>>> [ 552.300528] file_open_name+0xe4/0x114
>>> [ 552.304772] filp_open+0x28/0x48
>>> [ 552.308499] kernel_read_file_from_path+0x30/0x78
>>> [ 552.313700] _request_firmware+0x3ec/0x78c
>>> [ 552.318291] request_firmware+0x3c/0x54
>>> [ 552.322642] s5p_mfc_load_firmware+0x54/0x150 [s5p_mfc]
>>> [ 552.328358] s5p_mfc_open+0x4e4/0x550 [s5p_mfc]
>>> [ 552.333394] v4l2_open+0xa0/0x104 [videodev]
>>> [ 552.338137] chrdev_open+0xa4/0x18c
>>> [ 552.342121] do_dentry_open+0x208/0x310
>>> [ 552.346454] path_openat+0x28c/0x944
>>> [ 552.350526] do_filp_open+0x60/0xc4
>>> [ 552.354512] do_sys_open+0x118/0x1c8
>>> [ 552.358586] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x28
>>> [ 552.362830]
>>> -> #0 (&dev->mfc_mutex){+.+.}:
>>> -> #0 (&dev->mfc_mutex){+.+.}:
>>> [ 552.368379] lock_acquire+0x6c/0x88
>>> [ 552.372364] __mutex_lock+0x68/0xa34
>>> [ 552.376437] mutex_lock_interruptible_nested+0x1c/0x24
>>> [ 552.382086] s5p_mfc_mmap+0x28/0xd4 [s5p_mfc]
>>> [ 552.386939] v4l2_mmap+0x54/0x88 [videodev]
>>> [ 552.391601] mmap_region+0x3a8/0x638
>>> [ 552.395673] do_mmap+0x330/0x3a4
>>> [ 552.399400] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x90/0xb8
>>> [ 552.403472] SyS_mmap_pgoff+0x90/0xc0
>>> [ 552.407632] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x28
>>> [ 552.411876]
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>
>>> [ 552.419848] Chain exists of:
>>> &dev->mfc_mutex --> &type->i_mutex_dir_key#2 --> &mm->mmap_sem
>>>
>>> [ 552.431200] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>>
>>> [ 552.437092] CPU0 CPU1
>>> [ 552.441598] ---- ----
>>> [ 552.446104] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>> [ 552.449484] lock(&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2);
>>> [ 552.456329] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>> [ 552.462222] lock(&dev->mfc_mutex);
>>> [ 552.465775]
>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> I am not 100% but it looks like false positive. Could you describe
>> scenario when it deadlocks?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc.c | 4 ++++
>>> drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_common.h | 3 +++
>>> drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_ctrl.c | 5 +++++
>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc.c b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc.c
>>> index 1afde50..4c253fb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc.c
>>> @@ -1315,6 +1315,10 @@ static int s5p_mfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> goto err_dma;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + ret = s5p_mfc_load_firmware(dev);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + mfc_err("Failed to load FW - try loading from open()\n");
>>> +
>>
>> What is the point of adding it? It will produce error log in case
>> filesystem is not yet mounted, and as I remember it was the reason to
>> put fw load to open callback.
>
> "What is the point of adding it" does it mean the error message or the
> attempt to load the firmware. Would it be okay to just try to load and
> not print error if it fails? If it works at this stage, _open() doesn't
> have to take time hit trying to load it.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
