Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: pl330: Fix a race condition

[Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>]

On 09/12/11 14:15, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 09/12/11 13:04, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> Hi Javi,
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2011 17:28, Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Javi, could you please check if you too get the memcpy failure with
>>>>>>>> dmatest ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I think I've just reproduced it in my end with the kernel's dmatest
>>>>> module.  After the first transaction it looks like the dma test wasn't
>>>>> able to issue any more transactions.
>>>>>
>>>> If you submit a transaction, it finishes and there's nothing else to run,
>>>> pl330_update() calls _start() but there is nothing to send.  This is all
>>>> right.  Then, if another transaction is submitted, pl330_submit_req() will
>>>> put it in buffer 0 again.  This time, the PC of the DMA is in the last
>>>> instruction of buffer 0 (the DMAEND of the *previous* transaction that
>>>> finished long ago) so _thrd_active() thinks that this buffer is active,
>>>>
>>> Many thanks for the in-depth analysis.
>>>
>>> Though before the PC check, the IS_FREE() should return true since
>>> pl330_update() does MARK_FREE()
>>>
>>> Could you please check if the client's callback function called
>>> successfully for the
>>> first submitted transfer ?
>>
>> Yes, it calls MARK_FREE() and indeed in pl330_update(), _thrd_active()
>> returns 0.  The problem comes when, afterwards, pl330_submit_req()
>> introduces a new request and chooses the same buffer. Then, IS_FREE()
>> returns false (obviously) but the PC of the DMA is at the end of the
>> buffer, so _thrd_active() claims that it is active so pl330_chan_ctrl()
>> doesn't start it.
>>
> OK, I see what you mean.
> We need to be able to differentiate between 'programmed' state
> and 'running' state.
> So instead of employing  _state() or another marker, we'd rather
> alternate between buff 0 & 1 as a workaround.
> 
> That is, I am ok with your following fix.
> 
> -       idx = IS_FREE(&thrd->req[0]) ? 0 : 1;
> +       idx = IS_FREE(&thrd->req[1 - thrd->lstenq]) ? 1 - thrd->lstenq
> : thrd->lstenq;

No, see my last comment in the previous email.  I think this freezes the
DMA in the following scenario:

pl330_submit_req()
pl330_chan_ctrl(PL33O_OP_START)
... wait for the transfer to finish ...
pl330_update()
...
pl330_submit_req()
pl330_submit_req()
pl330_chan_ctrl(PL330_OP_START)

The pl330 won't start because of the same reason, we have a request in
buffer 0 and _thrd_active() would say that it is active.  This can
happen if drivers/dma/pl330.c:fill_queues() introduces two requests
before calling pl330_chan_ctrl(), which I'm not entirely sure that it
can't happen.

I think the best solution would be to revert
ee3f615819404a9438b2dd01b7a39f276d2737f2 and go back to my original
patch (in the beginning of this thread):

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/133110

What do you think?  Thanks,
Javi