Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Fix random system lockup

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>]

On 02/28/2012 07:28 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:17:41PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> On 02/09/2012 09:27 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>>> From: Raja Mani <rmani@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>>
>>> The commit "ath6kl: Use a mutex_lock to avoid
>>> race in diabling and handling irq" introduces a
>>> state where ath6kl_sdio_irq_handler() would be waiting
>>> to claim the sdio function for receive indefinitely
>>> when things happen in the following order.
>>>
>>> ath6kl_sdio_irq_handler()
>>> 	- aquires mtx_irq
>>> 	- sdio_release_host()
>>> 					ath6kl_sdio_irq_disable()
>>> 						- sdio_claim_host()
>>> 						- sleep on mtx_irq
>>> 	ath6kl_hif_intr_bh_handler()
>>> 		- (indefinitely) wait for the sdio
>>> 		  function to be released to exclusively claim
>>> 		  it again for receive operation.
>>>
>>> Fix this by replacing the mtx_irq with an atomic
>>> variable and a wait_queue.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raja Mani <rmani@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>
>> I would really like to avoid using atomic variable if at all possible. I
>> was trying to think other options and what if we take in
>> ath6kl_sdio_irq_disable() mtx_irq before calling sdio_claim_host().
>> Wouldn't that solve the deadlock?
> 
> Ok, the goal is to process any pending interrupts before disabling the interrupt.
> Taking mutex before sdio_claim_host() would have a deadlock condition like the following
> 
> sdio_claim_host()			ath6kl_sdio_irq_disable()
> 						- Acquire mtx_irq
> ath6kl_sdio_irq_handler() 			- Trying to claim sdio func() 
>   - waiting on mtx_irq

Yeah, that's true. I really would not want to apply this patch but I
guess there is no other option :(

Kalle