linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC v1 2/5] clk: add missing lock when call clk_core_enable in clk_set_parent
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 17:01:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150507000154.GD21794@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150504083549.GC4082@shlinux1.ap.freescale.net>

On 05/04, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:07:47PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 04/15/15 07:26, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > clk_core_enable is executed without &enable_clock in clk_set_parent function.
> > > Adding it to avoid potential race condition issue.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances")
> > > Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Can you please describe the race condition? From what I can tell there
> > is not a race condition here and we've gone around on this part of the
> > code before to fix any race conditions.
> > 
> 
> Do you mean we do not need to acquire enable lock when execute clk_core_enable
> in set_parent function? Can you help explain a bit more why?
> 
> The clk doc looks to me says the enable lock should be held across calls to
> the .enable, .disable and .is_enabled operations.
> 
> And before the commit
> 035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances"),
> all the clk_enable/disable in set_parent() is executed with lock.
> 
> A rough thinking of race condition is assuming Thread A calls
> clk_set_parent(x, y) while Thread B calls clk_enable(x), clock x is disabled
> but prepared initially, due to clk_core_enable in set_parent() is not
> executed with enable clock, the clk_core_enable may be reentrant during
> the locking time executed by B.
> Won't this be a race condition?
> 

Ah I see now. The commit text could say something like this:

Before commit 035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user
struct clk instances") we acquired the enable_lock in
__clk_set_parent_{before,after}() by means of calling
clk_enable(). After commit 035a61c314eb we use clk_core_enable()
in place of the clk_enable(), and clk_core_enable() doesn't
acquire the enable_lock. This opens up a race condition between
clk_set_parent() and clk_enable().

I've replaced the commit text and applied it to clk-fixes.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-07  0:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-15 14:26 [PATCH RFC v1 0/5] clk: support clocks which requires parent clock on during operation Dong Aisheng
2015-04-15 14:26 ` [PATCH RFC v1 1/5] clk: change clk_core name of __clk_set_parent_after Dong Aisheng
2015-04-30 19:06   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-04  8:15     ` Dong Aisheng
2015-04-15 14:26 ` [PATCH RFC v1 2/5] clk: add missing lock when call clk_core_enable in clk_set_parent Dong Aisheng
2015-04-30 19:07   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-04  8:35     ` Dong Aisheng
2015-05-07  0:01       ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-05-13  9:21         ` Dong Aisheng
2015-04-15 14:26 ` [PATCH RFC v1 3/5] clk: remove unneeded __clk_enable and __clk_disable Dong Aisheng
2015-04-30 19:09   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-04-30 22:05     ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-04  8:16       ` Dong Aisheng
2015-04-15 14:26 ` [PATCH RFC v1 4/5] clk: core: add CLK_SET_PARENT_ON flags to support clocks require parent on Dong Aisheng
2015-05-01  1:09   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-04 10:36     ` Dong Aisheng
2015-05-06 23:34       ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-13  9:20         ` Dong Aisheng
2015-04-15 14:26 ` [PATCH RFC v1 5/5] clk: introduce clk_core_enable_lock and clk_core_disable_lock functions Dong Aisheng
2015-05-01  1:10   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-05-04 10:38     ` Dong Aisheng
2015-04-22  6:12 ` [PATCH RFC v1 0/5] clk: support clocks which requires parent clock on during operation Dong Aisheng
2015-04-30  2:37   ` Dong Aisheng

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=20150507000154.GD21794@codeaurora.org \
    --to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).