patches.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after timeout in busy_loop()
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:20:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1248ebb9-ff14-418a-ae01-cfa5c8ca9d68@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-0n52REGuVrqG8LUdWzjgqAun7uvDFPJeSkjX02OxD=fUhqg@mail.gmail.com>



On 9/6/2023 1:14 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2023-09-06 13:04:54)
>> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:09:41AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> It's possible for the polling loop in busy_loop() to get scheduled away
>>> for a long time.
>>>
>>>   status = ipc_read_status(scu); // status = IPC_STATUS_BUSY
>>>   <long time scheduled away>
>>>   if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
>>>
>>> If this happens, then the status bit could change while the task is
>>> scheduled away and this function would never read the status again after
>>> timing out. Instead, the function will return -ETIMEDOUT when it's
>>> possible that scheduling didn't work out and the status bit was cleared.
>>> Bit polling code should always check the bit being polled one more time
>>> after the timeout in case this happens.
>>>
>>> Fix this by reading the status once more after the while loop breaks.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>  static inline int busy_loop(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu)
>>>  {
>>>       unsigned long end = jiffies + IPC_TIMEOUT;
>>> +     u32 status;
>>>
>>>       do {
>>> -             u32 status;
>>> -
>>>               status = ipc_read_status(scu);
>>>               if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
>>
>>> -                     return (status & IPC_STATUS_ERR) ? -EIO : 0;
>>> +                     goto not_busy;
>>
>> Wouldn't simple 'break' suffice here?
> 
> Yes, at the cost of reading the status again when it isn't busy, or
> checking the busy bit after the loop breaks out and reading it once
> again when it is busy. I suppose the compiler would figure that out and
> optimize so that break would simply goto the return statement.
> 
> The code could look like this without a goto.
> 
> 	do {
> 		status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> 		if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
> 			break;
> 	} while (time_before(jiffies, end));
> 
> 	if (status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY)
> 		status = ipc_read_status(scu);

IMO, you can remove the if condition and read again the status in all cases.
It is more readable. But it is up to you.

/* Always read again to double check and get the latest status */
status = ipc_read_status(scu);

> 
> 	if (status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY)
> 		return -ETIMEDOUT;
> 	
> 	return (status & IPC_STATUS_ERR) ? -EIO : 0;

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-06 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-06 18:09 [PATCH v2 0/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 18:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after timeout in busy_loop() Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 20:04   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-06 20:14     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 20:20       ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan [this message]
2023-09-06 20:23         ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-07  5:35   ` Mika Westerberg
2023-09-07 20:11     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-08  4:59       ` Mika Westerberg
2023-09-08 21:29         ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 18:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status upon timeout in ipc_wait_for_interrupt() Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 20:06   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-06 18:09 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if still busy Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 20:13   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-06 20:22     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 20:46       ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-06 20:59         ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-07  5:29           ` Mika Westerberg

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=1248ebb9-ff14-418a-ae01-cfa5c8ca9d68@linux.intel.com \
    --to=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markgross@kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmalani@chromium.org \
    --cc=swboyd@chromium.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).