patches.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Stephen Boyd" <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.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: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:10:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a0573057-8b93-f6f8-59eb-e8d30ac7035f@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2bd9b7e2-a558-305b-bfd9-e64c28b6303d@linux.intel.com>

Hi Ilpo,

On 9/15/23 15:49, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 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?

As I understand it the problem before was that the function would
return -ETIMEDOUT; purely based on wait_for_completion_timeout()
without ever actually checking the BUSY bit:

Old code:

	if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&scu->cmd_complete, IPC_TIMEOUT))
		return -ETIMEDOUT;

This allows for a scenario where when the IRQ processing got delayed
(on say another core) causing the timeout to trigger,
ipc_wait_for_interrupt() would return -ETIMEDOUT even though
the BUSY flag was already cleared by the SCU.

This patch adds an explicit check for the BUSY flag after
the wait_for_completion(), rather then relying on the
wait_for_completion() return value which implies things
are still busy.

As for "What prevents IPC_STATUS_BUSY from 
changing right after you've read it in ipc_read_status(scu)?"

AFAICT in this code path the bit is only ever supposed to go
from being set (busy) to unset (not busy), not the other
way around since no new commands can be submitted until
this function has completed. So that scenario cannot happen.

Regards,

Hans


  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-18 13:10 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
2023-09-18 13:10     ` Hans de Goede [this message]
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=a0573057-8b93-f6f8-59eb-e8d30ac7035f@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.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).