From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ju Nan" <junan76@163.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
mfd@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lee@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] pinctrl: stm32: Fix the unit of the hwspinlock timeout
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:20:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-171521@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261014160917.139241-3-junan76@163.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] pinctrl: stm32: same-CPU starvation with HWLOCK_IN_ATOMIC on PREEMPT_RT
--
commit 635cf6ace8c829d5e8fd3222bc79311f9ac07fc2
Author: Ju Nan <junan76@163.com>
pinctrl: stm32: Fix the unit of the hwspinlock timeout
This commit updates the hardware spinlock timeout parameter passed to
hwspin_lock_timeout_in_atomic(). It modifies the timeout constant name and
changes its value from microseconds to milliseconds across the stm32 pinctrl
driver to match the expected API units.
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ static int stm32_pmx_set_mode(struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank,
>
> if (pctl->hwlock) {
> err = hwspin_lock_timeout_in_atomic(pctl->hwlock,
> - HWSPNLCK_TIMEOUT);
> + HWSPNLCK_TIMEOUT_MS);
[Severity: High]
Does calling hwspin_lock_timeout_in_atomic() here cause a same-CPU starvation
issue on PREEMPT_RT?
Because hwspin_lock_timeout_in_atomic() uses the HWLOCK_IN_ATOMIC mode,
it implements the timeout by busy-waiting via udelay() and assumes preemption
is disabled by the caller.
However, on PREEMPT_RT, spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock) acquires an rt_mutex
which leaves preemption enabled.
If thread A acquires pctl->hwlock and is preempted, and thread B on the
same CPU subsequently acquires a different bank's lock and attempts to acquire
this shared pctl->hwlock, thread B will busy-wait.
Since thread B loops in a busy-wait for the entire 1ms timeout, thread A is
starved and cannot run to release the hardware lock, resulting in a guaranteed
spurious -ETIMEDOUT failure for thread B.
> if (err) {
> dev_err(pctl->dev, "Can't get hwspinlock\n");
> goto unlock;
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261014160917.139241-2-junan76@163.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-14 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-14 16:09 [PATCH v4 0/2] pinctrl: stm32: fix hwspinlock timeout and EXTI mux locking Ju Nan
2026-10-14 16:09 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] pinctrl: stm32: Fix the unit of the hwspinlock timeout Ju Nan
2026-10-14 16:20 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-14 16:09 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] pinctrl: stm32: program the EXTI mux from .alloc instead of .activate Ju Nan
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=sashiko-outbox-171521@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=junan76@163.com \
--cc=lee@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mfd@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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