From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Cc: jiajie.hao@mediatek.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, andy.teng@mediatek.com,
jejb@linux.ibm.com, chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com,
kuohong.wang@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
asutoshd@codeaurora.org, avri.altman@wdc.com,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, peter.wang@mediatek.com,
alim.akhtar@samsung.com, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
beanhuo@micron.com, chaotian.jing@mediatek.com,
cc.chou@mediatek.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
bvanassche@acm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 19:50:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ee423cd3b5c42942a8895a8f08a26e68@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200803100448.2738-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Hi Stanley,
On 2020-08-03 18:04, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
> UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
> scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
> accesses.
>
> To fix this kind of issues, in ufshcd_shutdown(),
>
> 1. Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally" to let runtime PM framework
> manage and prevent concurrent runtime operations by incoming I/O
> requests.
>
> 2. Specifically quiesce all SCSI devices to block all I/O requests
> after device is resumed.
>
> Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended
>
> Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
> ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
>
> Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
> e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)
>
> This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
> concurrently and some unexpected racing behavior may happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
> ---
> Changes:
> - Since v6:
> - Do quiesce to all SCSI devices.
> - Since v4:
> - Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally".
> ---
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 307622284239..7cb220b3fde0 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -8640,6 +8640,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
> int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> + struct scsi_target *starget;
>
> if (!hba->is_powered)
> goto out;
> @@ -8647,11 +8648,27 @@ int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
> goto out;
>
> - if (pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev)) {
> - ret = ufshcd_runtime_resume(hba);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> - }
> + /*
> + * Let runtime PM framework manage and prevent concurrent runtime
> + * operations with shutdown flow.
> + */
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev);
> +
> + /*
> + * Quiesce all SCSI devices to prevent any non-PM requests sending
> + * from block layer during and after shutdown.
> + *
> + * Here we can not use blk_cleanup_queue() since PM requests
> + * (with BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT flag) are still required to be sent
> + * through block layer. Therefore SCSI command queued after the
> + * scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will block until
> + * blk_cleanup_queue() is called.
> + *
> + * Besides, scsi_target_"un"quiesce (e.g., scsi_target_resume) can
> + * be ignored since shutdown is one-way flow.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
> + scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
>
Sorry for misleading you to scsi_target_quiesce(), maybe below is
better.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
We may need to discuss more about this quiesce part since I missed
something.
After we quiesce the scsi devices, only PM requests are allowed, but it
is still not safe: [1] PM requests can still pass through, [2] there can
be tasks/reqs present in doorbells before the devices are quiesced. So,
these tasks/reqs in [1] and [2] can still be flying in parallel while
ufshcd_suspend is running.
How about only quiescing the UFS device well known scsi device but using
freeze_queue to the other scsi devices? blk_mq_freeze_queue can
eliminate
the risks mentioned in [1] and [2].
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
if (sdev == hba->sdev_ufs_device)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
else
blk_mq_freeze_queue(sdev->request_queue);
}
IF blk_mq_freeze_queue is not allowed to be used by LLD (I think we can
use it as I recalled Bart used to use it in one of his changes to UFS
scaling),
we may need to make changes like below. [1] is to make sure no more PM
requests
sent to scsi devices, [2] is make sure doorbells are cleared before
invoke
ufshcd_suspend.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
scsi_autopm_get_device(sdev); [1]
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
}
ufshcd_wait_for_doorbell_clr(hba, U64_MAX); [2]
Please let me know your ideas, thanks!
Regards,
Can Guo.
> ret = ufshcd_suspend(hba, UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM);
> out:
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
avri.altman@wdc.com, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
bvanassche@acm.org, beanhuo@micron.com, asutoshd@codeaurora.org,
matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kuohong.wang@mediatek.com,
peter.wang@mediatek.com, chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com,
andy.teng@mediatek.com, chaotian.jing@mediatek.com,
cc.chou@mediatek.com, jiajie.hao@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 19:50:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ee423cd3b5c42942a8895a8f08a26e68@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200803100448.2738-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Hi Stanley,
On 2020-08-03 18:04, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
> UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
> scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
> accesses.
>
> To fix this kind of issues, in ufshcd_shutdown(),
>
> 1. Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally" to let runtime PM framework
> manage and prevent concurrent runtime operations by incoming I/O
> requests.
>
> 2. Specifically quiesce all SCSI devices to block all I/O requests
> after device is resumed.
>
> Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended
>
> Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
> ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
>
> Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
> e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)
>
> This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
> concurrently and some unexpected racing behavior may happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
> ---
> Changes:
> - Since v6:
> - Do quiesce to all SCSI devices.
> - Since v4:
> - Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally".
> ---
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 307622284239..7cb220b3fde0 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -8640,6 +8640,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
> int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> + struct scsi_target *starget;
>
> if (!hba->is_powered)
> goto out;
> @@ -8647,11 +8648,27 @@ int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
> goto out;
>
> - if (pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev)) {
> - ret = ufshcd_runtime_resume(hba);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> - }
> + /*
> + * Let runtime PM framework manage and prevent concurrent runtime
> + * operations with shutdown flow.
> + */
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev);
> +
> + /*
> + * Quiesce all SCSI devices to prevent any non-PM requests sending
> + * from block layer during and after shutdown.
> + *
> + * Here we can not use blk_cleanup_queue() since PM requests
> + * (with BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT flag) are still required to be sent
> + * through block layer. Therefore SCSI command queued after the
> + * scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will block until
> + * blk_cleanup_queue() is called.
> + *
> + * Besides, scsi_target_"un"quiesce (e.g., scsi_target_resume) can
> + * be ignored since shutdown is one-way flow.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
> + scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
>
Sorry for misleading you to scsi_target_quiesce(), maybe below is
better.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
We may need to discuss more about this quiesce part since I missed
something.
After we quiesce the scsi devices, only PM requests are allowed, but it
is still not safe: [1] PM requests can still pass through, [2] there can
be tasks/reqs present in doorbells before the devices are quiesced. So,
these tasks/reqs in [1] and [2] can still be flying in parallel while
ufshcd_suspend is running.
How about only quiescing the UFS device well known scsi device but using
freeze_queue to the other scsi devices? blk_mq_freeze_queue can
eliminate
the risks mentioned in [1] and [2].
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
if (sdev == hba->sdev_ufs_device)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
else
blk_mq_freeze_queue(sdev->request_queue);
}
IF blk_mq_freeze_queue is not allowed to be used by LLD (I think we can
use it as I recalled Bart used to use it in one of his changes to UFS
scaling),
we may need to make changes like below. [1] is to make sure no more PM
requests
sent to scsi devices, [2] is make sure doorbells are cleared before
invoke
ufshcd_suspend.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
scsi_autopm_get_device(sdev); [1]
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
}
ufshcd_wait_for_doorbell_clr(hba, U64_MAX); [2]
Please let me know your ideas, thanks!
Regards,
Can Guo.
> ret = ufshcd_suspend(hba, UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM);
> out:
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Cc: jiajie.hao@mediatek.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, andy.teng@mediatek.com,
jejb@linux.ibm.com, chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com,
kuohong.wang@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
asutoshd@codeaurora.org, avri.altman@wdc.com,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, peter.wang@mediatek.com,
alim.akhtar@samsung.com, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
beanhuo@micron.com, chaotian.jing@mediatek.com,
cc.chou@mediatek.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
bvanassche@acm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 19:50:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ee423cd3b5c42942a8895a8f08a26e68@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200803100448.2738-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Hi Stanley,
On 2020-08-03 18:04, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
> UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
> scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
> accesses.
>
> To fix this kind of issues, in ufshcd_shutdown(),
>
> 1. Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally" to let runtime PM framework
> manage and prevent concurrent runtime operations by incoming I/O
> requests.
>
> 2. Specifically quiesce all SCSI devices to block all I/O requests
> after device is resumed.
>
> Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended
>
> Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
> ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
>
> Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
> e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)
>
> This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
> concurrently and some unexpected racing behavior may happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
> ---
> Changes:
> - Since v6:
> - Do quiesce to all SCSI devices.
> - Since v4:
> - Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally".
> ---
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 307622284239..7cb220b3fde0 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -8640,6 +8640,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
> int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> + struct scsi_target *starget;
>
> if (!hba->is_powered)
> goto out;
> @@ -8647,11 +8648,27 @@ int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
> goto out;
>
> - if (pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev)) {
> - ret = ufshcd_runtime_resume(hba);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> - }
> + /*
> + * Let runtime PM framework manage and prevent concurrent runtime
> + * operations with shutdown flow.
> + */
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev);
> +
> + /*
> + * Quiesce all SCSI devices to prevent any non-PM requests sending
> + * from block layer during and after shutdown.
> + *
> + * Here we can not use blk_cleanup_queue() since PM requests
> + * (with BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT flag) are still required to be sent
> + * through block layer. Therefore SCSI command queued after the
> + * scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will block until
> + * blk_cleanup_queue() is called.
> + *
> + * Besides, scsi_target_"un"quiesce (e.g., scsi_target_resume) can
> + * be ignored since shutdown is one-way flow.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
> + scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
>
Sorry for misleading you to scsi_target_quiesce(), maybe below is
better.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
We may need to discuss more about this quiesce part since I missed
something.
After we quiesce the scsi devices, only PM requests are allowed, but it
is still not safe: [1] PM requests can still pass through, [2] there can
be tasks/reqs present in doorbells before the devices are quiesced. So,
these tasks/reqs in [1] and [2] can still be flying in parallel while
ufshcd_suspend is running.
How about only quiescing the UFS device well known scsi device but using
freeze_queue to the other scsi devices? blk_mq_freeze_queue can
eliminate
the risks mentioned in [1] and [2].
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
if (sdev == hba->sdev_ufs_device)
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
else
blk_mq_freeze_queue(sdev->request_queue);
}
IF blk_mq_freeze_queue is not allowed to be used by LLD (I think we can
use it as I recalled Bart used to use it in one of his changes to UFS
scaling),
we may need to make changes like below. [1] is to make sure no more PM
requests
sent to scsi devices, [2] is make sure doorbells are cleared before
invoke
ufshcd_suspend.
shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
scsi_autopm_get_device(sdev); [1]
scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
}
ufshcd_wait_for_doorbell_clr(hba, U64_MAX); [2]
Please let me know your ideas, thanks!
Regards,
Can Guo.
> ret = ufshcd_suspend(hba, UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM);
> out:
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-03 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-03 10:04 [PATCH v7] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown Stanley Chu
2020-08-03 10:04 ` Stanley Chu
2020-08-03 10:04 ` Stanley Chu
2020-08-03 11:50 ` Can Guo [this message]
2020-08-03 11:50 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 11:50 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:04 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:04 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:04 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:51 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:51 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 12:51 ` Can Guo
2020-08-03 16:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-03 16:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-03 16:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-04 3:19 ` [SPAM]Re: " Chaotian Jing
2020-08-04 3:19 ` Chaotian Jing
2020-08-04 3:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-04 3:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-13 8:55 ` Stanley Chu
2020-08-13 8:55 ` Stanley Chu
2020-08-13 8:55 ` Stanley Chu
2020-08-14 2:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-14 2:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-08-14 2:52 ` Bart Van Assche
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=ee423cd3b5c42942a8895a8f08a26e68@codeaurora.org \
--to=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=andy.teng@mediatek.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cc.chou@mediatek.com \
--cc=chaotian.jing@mediatek.com \
--cc=chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiajie.hao@mediatek.com \
--cc=kuohong.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=peter.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.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.