From: tixy@linaro.org (Jon Medhurst (Tixy))
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix some race conditions in residue calculation
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:40:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1457433611.2818.83.camel@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160308041238.GL11154@localhost>
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 09:42 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:14:34PM +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > The residue calculation in pl330_tx_status doesn't handle transitional
> > states that occur at the time one descriptor (A) is completed and the
> > next (B) is started. Specifically, both A and B can simultaneously be in
> > the BUSY state and at this time the thread's 'req_running' may (or may
> > not) be -1.
>
> you are under lock so descriptor state wont be update while we are it.
>
> Also the query for residue is for "a descriptor" not whatever is the current
> running descriptor...
>
> >
> > To cope with this situation we change the code to ensure A is treated as
> > complete and B as having not yet started. Prior to the change, the code
> > would calculate a transferred byte count as if both A and B had
> > completed.
>
> You query for either A or B not both!
I've probably been using wrong/ambiguous terminology...
In my description I'm using 'descriptor' to refer to a 'struct
dma_pl330_desc', I guess other people assume 'struct
dma_async_tx_descriptor'?
The situation I was debugging was audio playback, where ASoC ends up
calling pl330_prep_dma_cyclic() with a period one quarter the length of
the buffer it is using, so that results in four dma_pl330_desc
'descriptors' being created to cover that buffer. These later get
submitted to a DMA channel (struct dma_pl330_chan) which has a list of
these that it is processing (the 'work_list').
The residual calculation that currently exists in pl08x_dma_tx_status()
is iterating this work_list and summing the length of currently
transferring 'descriptor' with those later pending ones. I believe that
is correct behaviour because these 'descriptors' (dma_pl330_desc) are
all internal implementation details of the driver, and the dmaengine
API's are dealing in units of 'dma_async_tx_descriptor' ?
If the current code is OK in this regard, it is definitely buggy because
it doesn't cope with the situation when two dma_pl330_desc's are in the
state 'BUSY' a, which I have seen occur when debugging this issue, had
worked out can happen by analysing the code, and is acknowledged by the
in-source comments for enum desc_status...
/*
* Sitting on the work_list and already submitted
* to the PL330 core. Not more than two descriptors
* of a channel can be BUSY at any time.
*/
BUSY,
In my problematic usecase I have userside code calling ALSA ioctls to
poll the current audio playback position which results in
pl08x_dma_tx_status() being called multiple times a second. After only a
second or two the buggy situation gets hit, resulting in a
miscalculation that ASoC interprets as a buffer underflow and so it
stops the stream.
I spent several days debugging this, with enough ad hoc tests and
printk's littered everywhere to be very confident as to how things are
going wrong - what I'm not not totally confident of is how things should
be properly fixed.
This patch appears to fix the situation that I was hitting, but it
really looks like there isn't any locking that prevent this polling use
of pl08x_dma_tx_status() from happening concurrently with the irq
handler reprogramming the hardware for the next dma_pl330_desc. I didn't
attempt any fix for that for fear of introducing bugs in what looks like
complex code, and because it's not a problem I saw happen in practice.
-- Tixy
>
> >
> > Fixes: aee4d1fac887 ("dmaengine: pl330: improve pl330_tx_status() function")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > I discovered this issue when trying to work out why audio stopped
> > working on ARM's Juno platform and bisected it to commit aee4d1fac887.
> > Whilst this patch seems to fix the problems I was seeing, I can't help
> > but think there are more race conditions with this code. E.g. if the
> > running descriptor changes under us, pl330_get_current_xferred_count
> > can end up reading values from hardware that relate to a different
> > descriptor. And if we're really unlucky, the reading of the 'val' and
> > 'addr' values in pl330_get_current_xferred_count can come from different
> > descriptors. I don't know if there is any locks we can use to prevent
> > such races or if we need to try and detect when things have changed and
> > redo/abort the residue calculation...
> >
> > drivers/dma/pl330.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > index 17ee758..55e3c5f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > @@ -2240,6 +2240,7 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
> > struct dma_pl330_desc *desc, *running = NULL;
> > struct dma_pl330_chan *pch = to_pchan(chan);
> > unsigned int transferred, residual = 0;
> > + bool first_busy;
> >
> > ret = dma_cookie_status(chan, cookie, txstate);
> >
> > @@ -2253,16 +2254,31 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
> >
> > if (pch->thread->req_running != -1)
> > running = pch->thread->req[pch->thread->req_running].desc;
> > + first_busy = true;
> >
> > /* Check in pending list */
> > list_for_each_entry(desc, &pch->work_list, node) {
> > if (desc->status == DONE)
> > transferred = desc->bytes_requested;
> > - else if (running && desc == running)
> > - transferred =
> > - pl330_get_current_xferred_count(pch, desc);
> > - else
> > + else if (desc->status == BUSY && first_busy) {
> > + first_busy = false;
> > + if (running && desc == running) {
> > + transferred =
> > + pl330_get_current_xferred_count(pch, desc);
> > + } else {
> > + /* BUSY but not running means it's just completed */
> > + transferred = desc->bytes_requested;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Descriptor is either in PREP state queued for future
> > + * transfer or it is the second BUSY descriptor we have
> > + * seen. The latter case means it has just, or is about
> > + * to be, started, so treat it as having not yet
> > + * transferred any bytes, the same as PREP.
> > + */
> > transferred = 0;
> > + }
> > residual += desc->bytes_requested - transferred;
> > if (desc->txd.cookie == cookie) {
> > switch (desc->status) {
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
> >
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Cc: Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@samsung.com>,
Lukasz Czerwinski <l.czerwinski@samsung.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Jaswinder Singh <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix some race conditions in residue calculation
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:40:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1457433611.2818.83.camel@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160308041238.GL11154@localhost>
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 09:42 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:14:34PM +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > The residue calculation in pl330_tx_status doesn't handle transitional
> > states that occur at the time one descriptor (A) is completed and the
> > next (B) is started. Specifically, both A and B can simultaneously be in
> > the BUSY state and at this time the thread's 'req_running' may (or may
> > not) be -1.
>
> you are under lock so descriptor state wont be update while we are it.
>
> Also the query for residue is for "a descriptor" not whatever is the current
> running descriptor...
>
> >
> > To cope with this situation we change the code to ensure A is treated as
> > complete and B as having not yet started. Prior to the change, the code
> > would calculate a transferred byte count as if both A and B had
> > completed.
>
> You query for either A or B not both!
I've probably been using wrong/ambiguous terminology...
In my description I'm using 'descriptor' to refer to a 'struct
dma_pl330_desc', I guess other people assume 'struct
dma_async_tx_descriptor'?
The situation I was debugging was audio playback, where ASoC ends up
calling pl330_prep_dma_cyclic() with a period one quarter the length of
the buffer it is using, so that results in four dma_pl330_desc
'descriptors' being created to cover that buffer. These later get
submitted to a DMA channel (struct dma_pl330_chan) which has a list of
these that it is processing (the 'work_list').
The residual calculation that currently exists in pl08x_dma_tx_status()
is iterating this work_list and summing the length of currently
transferring 'descriptor' with those later pending ones. I believe that
is correct behaviour because these 'descriptors' (dma_pl330_desc) are
all internal implementation details of the driver, and the dmaengine
API's are dealing in units of 'dma_async_tx_descriptor' ?
If the current code is OK in this regard, it is definitely buggy because
it doesn't cope with the situation when two dma_pl330_desc's are in the
state 'BUSY' a, which I have seen occur when debugging this issue, had
worked out can happen by analysing the code, and is acknowledged by the
in-source comments for enum desc_status...
/*
* Sitting on the work_list and already submitted
* to the PL330 core. Not more than two descriptors
* of a channel can be BUSY at any time.
*/
BUSY,
In my problematic usecase I have userside code calling ALSA ioctls to
poll the current audio playback position which results in
pl08x_dma_tx_status() being called multiple times a second. After only a
second or two the buggy situation gets hit, resulting in a
miscalculation that ASoC interprets as a buffer underflow and so it
stops the stream.
I spent several days debugging this, with enough ad hoc tests and
printk's littered everywhere to be very confident as to how things are
going wrong - what I'm not not totally confident of is how things should
be properly fixed.
This patch appears to fix the situation that I was hitting, but it
really looks like there isn't any locking that prevent this polling use
of pl08x_dma_tx_status() from happening concurrently with the irq
handler reprogramming the hardware for the next dma_pl330_desc. I didn't
attempt any fix for that for fear of introducing bugs in what looks like
complex code, and because it's not a problem I saw happen in practice.
-- Tixy
>
> >
> > Fixes: aee4d1fac887 ("dmaengine: pl330: improve pl330_tx_status() function")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > I discovered this issue when trying to work out why audio stopped
> > working on ARM's Juno platform and bisected it to commit aee4d1fac887.
> > Whilst this patch seems to fix the problems I was seeing, I can't help
> > but think there are more race conditions with this code. E.g. if the
> > running descriptor changes under us, pl330_get_current_xferred_count
> > can end up reading values from hardware that relate to a different
> > descriptor. And if we're really unlucky, the reading of the 'val' and
> > 'addr' values in pl330_get_current_xferred_count can come from different
> > descriptors. I don't know if there is any locks we can use to prevent
> > such races or if we need to try and detect when things have changed and
> > redo/abort the residue calculation...
> >
> > drivers/dma/pl330.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > index 17ee758..55e3c5f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> > @@ -2240,6 +2240,7 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
> > struct dma_pl330_desc *desc, *running = NULL;
> > struct dma_pl330_chan *pch = to_pchan(chan);
> > unsigned int transferred, residual = 0;
> > + bool first_busy;
> >
> > ret = dma_cookie_status(chan, cookie, txstate);
> >
> > @@ -2253,16 +2254,31 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
> >
> > if (pch->thread->req_running != -1)
> > running = pch->thread->req[pch->thread->req_running].desc;
> > + first_busy = true;
> >
> > /* Check in pending list */
> > list_for_each_entry(desc, &pch->work_list, node) {
> > if (desc->status == DONE)
> > transferred = desc->bytes_requested;
> > - else if (running && desc == running)
> > - transferred =
> > - pl330_get_current_xferred_count(pch, desc);
> > - else
> > + else if (desc->status == BUSY && first_busy) {
> > + first_busy = false;
> > + if (running && desc == running) {
> > + transferred =
> > + pl330_get_current_xferred_count(pch, desc);
> > + } else {
> > + /* BUSY but not running means it's just completed */
> > + transferred = desc->bytes_requested;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Descriptor is either in PREP state queued for future
> > + * transfer or it is the second BUSY descriptor we have
> > + * seen. The latter case means it has just, or is about
> > + * to be, started, so treat it as having not yet
> > + * transferred any bytes, the same as PREP.
> > + */
> > transferred = 0;
> > + }
> > residual += desc->bytes_requested - transferred;
> > if (desc->txd.cookie == cookie) {
> > switch (desc->status) {
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-08 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-24 13:14 [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix some race conditions in residue calculation Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-02-24 13:14 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-03-08 4:12 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-08 4:12 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-08 10:40 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy) [this message]
2016-03-08 10:40 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-03-08 14:15 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-08 14:15 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-08 15:50 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-03-08 15:50 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-03-11 7:43 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-11 7:43 ` Vinod Koul
2016-03-15 9:10 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-03-15 9:10 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1457433611.2818.83.camel@linaro.org \
--to=tixy@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.