On Wed 07 Nov 06:25 PST 2018, xiang xiao wrote:
> This commit replace rproc_{shutdown,boot}() with rproc_{stop,start}(),
> which skip destroy the virtio device at stop but reinitialize it again at
> start:
> [ 603.446805] remoteproc remoteproc0: crash detected in
> f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc: type mmufault
> [ 603.456883] remoteproc remoteproc0: handling crash #1 in
> f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc
> [ 603.469593] remoteproc remoteproc0: recovering
> f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc
> [ 603.483172] remoteproc remoteproc0: stopped remote processor
> f9210000.toppwr:tl421-rproc
> [ 603.495999] kobject (ffffffc0b8c51098): tried to init an initialized
> object, something is seriously wrong.
>
I thought this issue was fixed.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [ 603.506868] CPU: 5 PID: 198 Comm: kworker/5:1 Tainted: G W
> 4.9.27-04454-gd4c1829-dirty #255
> [ 603.517468] Hardware name: Banks (DT)
> [ 603.521581] Workqueue: events rproc_crash_handler_work
> [ 603.527342] Call trace:
> [ 603.530086] [<ffffff800808bd9c>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1cc
> [ 603.536115] [<ffffff800808bf7c>] show_stack+0x14/0x1c
> [ 603.541771] [<ffffff80083fef08>] dump_stack+0xa8/0xe0
> [ 603.547423] [<ffffff8008402b24>] kobject_init+0x8c/0x9c
> [ 603.553280] [<ffffff800853758c>] device_initialize+0x3c/0xe8
> [ 603.559609] [<ffffff80085397d4>] device_register+0x14/0x28
> [ 603.565750] [<ffffff80084b777c>] register_virtio_device+0xc4/0x114
> [ 603.572669] [<ffffff8008878b20>] rproc_add_virtio_dev+0x7c/0x108
> [ 603.579390] [<ffffff8008875cbc>] rproc_vdev_do_probe+0x14/0x1c
> [ 603.585911] [<ffffff8008875a60>] rproc_start+0xac/0x1ac
> [ 603.591754] [<ffffff8008877a68>] rproc_trigger_recovery+0x2f8/0x324
> [ 603.598763] [<ffffff8008877b24>] rproc_crash_handler_work+0x90/0xb0
> [ 603.605778] [<ffffff80080cd570>] process_one_work+0x204/0x704
> [ 603.612202] [<ffffff80080cdac4>] worker_thread+0x54/0x4a8
> [ 603.618248] [<ffffff80080d4aec>] kthread+0xec/0x100
> [ 603.623703] [<ffffff8008083890>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40
>
> When the crash happen, is it better to destroy and recreate all virtio
> device and it’s children(rpmsg device) again to match the remote side state
> like the original behavior?
>
Yes, it's likely that the protocols on top does share some state, so we
do not have any choice but to report this up to the virtio device.
Removing and re-probing the devices - rather than having some other form
of notification of this event - makes the code simpler.
But it seems we're trying to re-register the same device the second
time, rather than initialize a new one.
Regards,
Bjorn
