From: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
To: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@motorola.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Dimitris Papastamos <dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Race fixes in sdhci
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:41:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3y62vl954.fsf@pullcord.laptop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTint2cr6vFwBGX1RCTYyvrTc0if=yA@mail.gmail.com> (Andrei Warkentin's message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:33:13 -0500")
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 27 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Mark Brown
> <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>> I've had this pair of patches sitting in my tree for a while now (I
>> believe they were previously posted) providing stability improvements in
>> sdhci on my systems. Having looked through the code I believe but have
>> not confirmed that the issue is that the timeout is racing with an
>> actual completion of a pending task - both paths will trigger the
>> tasklet, and if you trigger a tasklet while it is running this causes it
>> to be rescheduled. The result will be that the tasklet gets run a
>> second time with no work pending for it.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that these are the best fixes (it feels like we should
>> instead be closing the races down) but I don't really have time to come
>> up with something better myself right now so I'm pushing them out as-is
>> for comment.
>
> So the timeout interrupt occurs after even though the command
> succeeds? Am I interpreting that correctly?
No, I think Mark's saying there's a race of:
* the successful completion interrupt fires, and
* the host timer fires to signify timeout due to *lack* of an interrupt
(via sdhci_timeout_timer()). i.e., the completion interrupt fires
very close to the timeout period.
Both cases call tasklet_schedule(&host->finish_tasklet), and if you
manage to schedule a tasklet while it's already running, it runs again
after it completes -- but during the first run we set host->mrq->cmd to
NULL, so then it oopses on the second run.
We could consider taking Mark's first patch and also adding to the top:
/*
* If we get scheduled twice concurrently, this tasklet will
* be run again afterwards but without any active request.
*/
if (!host->mrq)
return;
.. and pushing to .39 with a stable@ tag.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-27 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-27 13:23 [PATCH 0/2] Race fixes in sdhci Mark Brown
2011-04-27 19:33 ` Andrei Warkentin
2011-04-27 20:41 ` Chris Ball [this message]
2011-04-27 21:04 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-27 21:44 ` Chris Ball
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=m3y62vl954.fsf@pullcord.laptop.org \
--to=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=andreiw@motorola.com \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
/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.