All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>
Cc: USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: usb: dwc3: Prevent indefinite sleep in _dwc3_set_mode during suspend/resume
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 13:27:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h8puwyn5.fsf@linux.intel.com> (raw)

Hi,

Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>  void dwc3_gadget_exit(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>> +  int epnum;
>>>>>>>>> +  unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +  spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> +  for (epnum = 2; epnum < DWC3_ENDPOINTS_NUM; epnum++) {
>>>>>>>>> +          struct dwc3_ep  *dep = dwc->eps[epnum];
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +          if (!dep)
>>>>>>>>> +                  continue;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +          dep->flags &= ~DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING;
>>>>>>>>> +  }
>>>>>>>>> +  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>    usb_del_gadget_udc(&dwc->gadget);
>>>>>>>>>    dwc3_gadget_free_endpoints(dwc);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> free endpoints is a better place for this. It's already going to free
>>>>>>>> the memory anyway. Might as well clear all flags to 0 there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it won't solve the deadlock issue. Since dwc3_gadget_free_endpoints()
>>>>>>> is called after usb_del_gadget_udc() and the deadlock happens when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> usb_del_gadget_udc()->udc_stop()->dwc3_gadget_stop()->wait_event_lock_irq()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING flag is set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> indeed. Iterating twice over the entire endpoint list seems
>>>>>> wasteful. Perhaps we just shouldn't wait when removing the UDC since
>>>>>> that's essentially what this patch will do, right? If you clear the flag
>>>>>> before calling ->udc_stop(), this means the loop in dwc3_gadget_stop()
>>>>>> will do nothing. Might as well remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that we will never wait for DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING to clear
>>>>> in dwc3_gadget_stop() like we used to. This is perfectly fine, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes sense to me as dwc3_gadget_stop() calls __dwc3_gadget_stop() which
>>>>> masks all interrupts and nobody will ever clear that flag if it was set.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. It can not mask the endpoint events, please check
>>>> the events which will be masked in DEVTEN register. The reason why we
>>>> should wait for DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING to clear is that,
>>>> sometimes the DWC3_DEPEVT_EPCMDCMPLT event will be triggered later
>>>> than 100us, but now we may have freed the gadget irq which will cause
>>>> crash.
>>>
>>> We could mask command complete events as soon as ->udc_stop() is called,
>>> right? Hmm, actually, __dwc3_gadget_stop() already clears DEVTEN
>>> completely.
>>
>> But which bit in DEVTEN says Endpoint events are disabled?
>
> When we set up the DWC3_DEPCMD_ENDTRANSFER command in
> dwc3_stop_active_transfer(), we can do not set DWC3_DEPCMD_CMDIOC,
> then there will no endpoint command complete interrupts I think.
>
> cmd |= DWC3_DEPCMD_CMDIOC;

I remember some part of the databook mandating CMDIOC to be set. We
could test it out without and see if anything blows up. I would,
however, require a lengthy comment explaining that we're deviating from
databook revision x.yya, section foobar because $reasons. :-)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>
Cc: USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Prevent indefinite sleep in _dwc3_set_mode during suspend/resume
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 13:27:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h8puwyn5.fsf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMz4kuJpBXY92zhG7s_VRkpcTHeLCE_vBLLSFVxLWjN2GQvyyw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3071 bytes --]


Hi,

Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>  void dwc3_gadget_exit(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>> +  int epnum;
>>>>>>>>> +  unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +  spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> +  for (epnum = 2; epnum < DWC3_ENDPOINTS_NUM; epnum++) {
>>>>>>>>> +          struct dwc3_ep  *dep = dwc->eps[epnum];
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +          if (!dep)
>>>>>>>>> +                  continue;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +          dep->flags &= ~DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING;
>>>>>>>>> +  }
>>>>>>>>> +  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>    usb_del_gadget_udc(&dwc->gadget);
>>>>>>>>>    dwc3_gadget_free_endpoints(dwc);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> free endpoints is a better place for this. It's already going to free
>>>>>>>> the memory anyway. Might as well clear all flags to 0 there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it won't solve the deadlock issue. Since dwc3_gadget_free_endpoints()
>>>>>>> is called after usb_del_gadget_udc() and the deadlock happens when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> usb_del_gadget_udc()->udc_stop()->dwc3_gadget_stop()->wait_event_lock_irq()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING flag is set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> indeed. Iterating twice over the entire endpoint list seems
>>>>>> wasteful. Perhaps we just shouldn't wait when removing the UDC since
>>>>>> that's essentially what this patch will do, right? If you clear the flag
>>>>>> before calling ->udc_stop(), this means the loop in dwc3_gadget_stop()
>>>>>> will do nothing. Might as well remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that we will never wait for DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING to clear
>>>>> in dwc3_gadget_stop() like we used to. This is perfectly fine, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes sense to me as dwc3_gadget_stop() calls __dwc3_gadget_stop() which
>>>>> masks all interrupts and nobody will ever clear that flag if it was set.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. It can not mask the endpoint events, please check
>>>> the events which will be masked in DEVTEN register. The reason why we
>>>> should wait for DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING to clear is that,
>>>> sometimes the DWC3_DEPEVT_EPCMDCMPLT event will be triggered later
>>>> than 100us, but now we may have freed the gadget irq which will cause
>>>> crash.
>>>
>>> We could mask command complete events as soon as ->udc_stop() is called,
>>> right? Hmm, actually, __dwc3_gadget_stop() already clears DEVTEN
>>> completely.
>>
>> But which bit in DEVTEN says Endpoint events are disabled?
>
> When we set up the DWC3_DEPCMD_ENDTRANSFER command in
> dwc3_stop_active_transfer(), we can do not set DWC3_DEPCMD_CMDIOC,
> then there will no endpoint command complete interrupts I think.
>
> cmd |= DWC3_DEPCMD_CMDIOC;

I remember some part of the databook mandating CMDIOC to be set. We
could test it out without and see if anything blows up. I would,
however, require a lengthy comment explaining that we're deviating from
databook revision x.yya, section foobar because $reasons. :-)

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2018-03-05 11:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-05 11:27 Felipe Balbi [this message]
2018-03-05 11:27 ` [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Prevent indefinite sleep in _dwc3_set_mode during suspend/resume Felipe Balbi
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-04-10  7:31 [v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-04-10  7:31 ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-04-10  6:29 [v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-04-10  6:29 ` [PATCH v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-19 13:53 [v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-19 13:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-19 11:36 [v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-19 11:36 ` [PATCH v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-19  8:54 [v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-19  8:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-17  6:33 [v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-17  6:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-16 12:25 [v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-16 12:25 ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-16 11:43 [v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-16 11:43 ` [PATCH v2] " Minas Harutyunyan
2018-03-16 11:03 [v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-16 11:00 [v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-16 11:00 ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-16 10:34 [v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-16 10:34 ` [PATCH v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-09 12:47 [v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-09 12:47 ` [PATCH v2] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-09 10:39 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09 10:39 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09 10:36 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09 10:36 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09  9:49 Roger Quadros
2018-03-09  9:49 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-09  9:26 Roger Quadros
2018-03-09  9:26 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-09  9:23 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09  9:23 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-09  9:19 Roger Quadros
2018-03-09  9:19 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-05 11:25 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-05 11:25 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-05 11:25 Baolin Wang
2018-03-05 11:25 ` [PATCH] " Baolin Wang
2018-03-05 11:14 Roger Quadros
2018-03-05 11:14 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-05 11:06 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-05 11:06 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-03-05 11:03 Roger Quadros
2018-03-05 11:03 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-05 10:41 Baolin Wang
2018-03-05 10:41 ` [PATCH] " Baolin Wang
2018-03-05  9:45 Roger Quadros
2018-03-05  9:45 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-03-05  8:49 Felipe Balbi
2018-03-05  8:49 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-02-28  9:59 Roger Quadros
2018-02-28  9:59 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-02-28  9:55 Roger Quadros
2018-02-28  9:55 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros
2018-02-28  7:53 Felipe Balbi
2018-02-28  7:53 ` [PATCH] " Felipe Balbi
2018-02-28  3:04 Baolin Wang
2018-02-28  3:04 ` [PATCH] " Baolin Wang
2018-02-27 11:22 Roger Quadros
2018-02-27 11:22 ` [PATCH] " Roger Quadros

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=87h8puwyn5.fsf@linux.intel.com \
    --to=balbi@kernel.org \
    --cc=baolin.wang@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rogerq@ti.com \
    /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.