Re: [RFC PATCH 9/9] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Fix deadlock between i2c adapter lock and mpu lock

[Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1931 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:53:14PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> From: Adriana Reus <adriana.reus-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> This deadlock occurs if the accel/gyro and the sensor on the auxiliary
> I2C (in my setup it's an ak8975) are working at the same time.
> 
> Scenario:
> 
>       T1					T2
>      ====				       ====
> inv_mpu6050_read_fifo                  aux sensor op (eg. ak8975_read_raw)
>         |                                     |
> mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock)           i2c_transfer
>         |                                     |
> i2c transaction                         i2c adapter lock
>         |                                     |
> i2c adapter lock                        i2c_mux_master_xfer
>                                               |
>                                         inv_mpu6050_select_bypass
>                                               |
>                                         mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock)
> 
> When we operate on an mpu sensor the order of locking is mpu lock
> followed by the i2c adapter lock. However, when we operate the auxiliary
> sensor the order of locking is the other way around.
> 
> In order to avoid this enable the bypass mux bit once in the beginning
> and remove the select/deselect_bypass functions.
> 
> This patch moves the bypass enabling in a separate function
> that is called once at probe and removes the functionality from
> inv_mpu_select/deselect_bypass.
> 
> Another advantage of this approach is that power-wise the mpu chip isn't
> powered up at each auxiliary sensor i2c transaction so if only the
> compass is used this would be more power efficient.

I think the comments (power must be enabled on select) rendered this
solution not acceptable. What about using mutex_trylock in
inv_mpu6050_select_bypass() and returning -EAGAIN if the lock is already
held?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]