patches.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
	 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	patches@lists.linux.dev,  platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	 Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	 Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status upon timeout in ipc_wait_for_interrupt()
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:49:04 +0300 (EEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2bd9b7e2-a558-305b-bfd9-e64c28b6303d@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230913212723.3055315-3-swboyd@chromium.org>

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> It's possible for the completion in ipc_wait_for_interrupt() to timeout,
> simply because the interrupt was delayed in being processed. A timeout
> in itself is not an error. This driver should check the status register
> upon a timeout to ensure that scheduling or interrupt processing delays
> don't affect the outcome of the IPC return value.
> 
>  CPU0                                                   SCU
>  ----                                                   ---
>  ipc_wait_for_interrupt()
>   wait_for_completion_timeout(&scu->cmd_complete)
>   [TIMEOUT]                                             status[IPC_STATUS_BUSY]=0
> 
> Fix this problem by reading the status bit in all cases, regardless of
> the timeout. If the completion times out, we'll assume the problem was
> that the IPC_STATUS_BUSY bit was still set, but if the status bit is
> cleared in the meantime we know that we hit some scheduling delay and we
> should just check the error bit.

Hi,

I don't understand the intent here. What prevents IPC_STATUS_BUSY from 
changing right after you've read it in ipc_read_status(scu)? Doesn't that 
end you exactly into the same situation where the returned value is stale 
so I cannot see how this fixes anything, at best it just plays around the 
race window that seems to still be there after this fix?

-- 
 i.


> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Fixes: ed12f295bfd5 ("ipc: Added support for IPC interrupt mode")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> index 4c774ee8bb1b..299c15312acb 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> @@ -248,10 +248,12 @@ static inline int ipc_wait_for_interrupt(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu)
>  {
>  	int status;
>  
> -	if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&scu->cmd_complete, IPC_TIMEOUT))
> -		return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +	wait_for_completion_timeout(&scu->cmd_complete, IPC_TIMEOUT);
>  
>  	status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> +	if (status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY)
> +		return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +
>  	if (status & IPC_STATUS_ERR)
>  		return -EIO;
>  
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-15 13:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-13 21:27 [PATCH v4 0/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes Stephen Boyd
2023-09-13 21:27 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after timeout in busy_loop() Stephen Boyd
2023-09-15 13:42   ` Ilpo Järvinen
2023-09-13 21:27 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status upon timeout in ipc_wait_for_interrupt() Stephen Boyd
2023-09-15 13:49   ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
2023-09-18 13:10     ` Hans de Goede
2023-09-18 13:26       ` Ilpo Järvinen
2023-09-13 21:27 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Don't override scu in intel_scu_ipc_dev_simple_command() Stephen Boyd
2023-09-15 14:45   ` Ilpo Järvinen
2023-09-16 11:14     ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-13 21:27 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if still busy Stephen Boyd
2023-09-15 14:49   ` Ilpo Järvinen
2023-09-18 13:15 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes Hans de Goede

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=2bd9b7e2-a558-305b-bfd9-e64c28b6303d@linux.intel.com \
    --to=ilpo.jarvinen@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=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    --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).