From: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
To: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc: <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>, <nguyenb@codeaurora.org>,
<hongwus@codeaurora.org>, <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
<linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@android.com>,
<saravanak@google.com>, <salyzyn@google.com>,
"Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
"Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Fix unbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold()
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 22:03:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1604412227.13152.11.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <09c5d4d31a0bd9bed99815cfbf51aaad@codeaurora.org>
Hi Can,
On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 18:01 +0800, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-11-03 15:07, Stanley Chu wrote:
> > Hi Can,
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 22:24 -0800, Can Guo wrote:
> >> The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be
> >> decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if
> >> specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that
> >> scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is
> >> queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold()
> >> and
> >
> > Just curious that how could this be possible? Would you have some
> > failed
> > examples?
> >
>
> [1] One gate_work() is in the workqueue, not yet executed, now clk state
> == REQ_CLKS_OFF.
> [2] ufshcd_queuecommand() calls ufshcd_hold(async == ture) ->
> active_req++ -> scsi_block_reqs_cnt++ -> REQ_CLKS_ON -> queue ungate
> work -> active_req-- -> return -EAGAIN.
> [3] Now gate_work() starts to run, but since the clk state is
> REQ_CLKS_ON, gate_work() just sets clk state to CLKS_ON and bail.
> [3] Someone calls ufshcd_hold(async == false) -> do something ->
> ufshcd_release() -> clk state is changed to REQ_CLKS_OFF. Note that,
> till now, ungate_work() is still in the work queue, not executed yet.
> [4] Now, if someone calls ufshcd_hold(), we will hit the issue.
>
> Above sequence is a very common clk gate/ungate sequence. The issue
> is because ungate_work is queued but cannot be executed in time. In my
> case, I see the ungate_work is somehow delayed for about 150ms. This
> change has been tested by customers on multiple platforms. And you
> can tell from the code that it won't break anything. :)
Thanks so much for the details. Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Can Guo.
>
> >> ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work()
> >> returns true.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Hongwu Su <hongwus@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >> index 847f355..efa7d86 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >> @@ -1634,12 +1634,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool
> >> async)
> >> */
> >> /* fallthrough */
> >> case CLKS_OFF:
> >> - ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
> >> hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON;
> >> trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
> >> hba->clk_gating.state);
> >> - queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
> >> - &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work);
> >> + if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
> >> + &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work))
> >> + ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
> >> /*
> >> * fall through to check if we should wait for this
> >> * work to be done or not.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stanley Chu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-03 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-03 6:24 [PATCH v1 0/2] Two minor fixes for UFS driver Can Guo
2020-11-03 6:24 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Fix unbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold() Can Guo
2020-11-03 7:07 ` Stanley Chu
2020-11-03 10:01 ` Can Guo
2020-11-03 14:03 ` Stanley Chu [this message]
2020-11-03 15:45 ` [EXT] " Bean Huo (beanhuo)
2020-11-11 17:33 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-11-03 6:24 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: Try to save power mode change and UIC cmd completion timeout Can Guo
2020-11-03 7:20 ` Stanley Chu
2020-11-03 8:01 ` Can Guo
2020-11-03 14:12 ` Stanley Chu
2020-11-03 6:24 ` [PATCH] " Can Guo
2020-11-03 6:27 ` Can Guo
2020-11-05 4:17 ` [PATCH v1 0/2] Two minor fixes for UFS driver Martin K. Petersen
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=1604412227.13152.11.camel@mtkswgap22 \
--to=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=hongwus@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=nguyenb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=salyzyn@google.com \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
/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