Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Potential fix of possible dwc3 interrupt storm

[Selvarasu Ganesan <selvarasu.g@samsung.com>]

On 8/10/2024 5:15 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2024 6:45 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/2024 6:08 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>>>>>>> In certain scenarios, there is a chance that the CPU may not be
>>>>>>> scheduled the bottom half of dwc3 interrupt. This is because the CPU
>>>>>>> may hang up where any work queue lockup has happened for the same CPU
>>>>>>> that is trying to schedule the dwc3 thread interrupt. In this scenario,
>>>>>>> the USB can enter runtime suspend as the bus may idle for a longer time
>>>>>>> , or user can reconnect the USB cable. Then, the dwc3 event interrupt
>>>>>>> can be enabled when runtime resume is happening with regardless of the
>>>>>>> previous event status. This can lead to a dwc3 IRQ storm due to the
>>>>>>> return from the interrupt handler by checking only the evt->flags as
>>>>>>> DWC3_EVENT_PENDING, where the same flag was set as DWC3_EVENT_PENDING
>>>>>>> in previous work queue lockup.
>>>>>>> Let's consider the following sequences in this scenario,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Call trace of dwc3 IRQ after workqueue lockup scenario
>>>>>>> ======================================================
>>>>>>> IRQ #1:
>>>>>>> ->dwc3_interrupt()
>>>>>>>      ->dwc3_check_event_buf()
>>>>>>>            ->if (evt->flags & DWC3_EVENT_PENDING)
>>>>>>>                         return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>>>>>            ->evt->flags |= DWC3_EVENT_PENDING;
>>>>>>>            ->/* Disable interrupt by setting DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_INTMASK  in
>>>>>>>                                                            DWC3_GEVNTSIZ
>>>>>>>            ->return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD; // No workqueue scheduled for dwc3
>>>>>>>                                         thread_fu due to workqueue lockup
>>>>>>>                                         even after return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD
>>>>>>>                                         from top-half.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thread #2:
>>>>>>> ->dwc3_runtime_resume()
>>>>>>>     ->dwc3_resume_common()
>>>>>>>       ->dwc3_gadget_resume()
>>>>>>>          ->dwc3_gadget_soft_connect()
>>>>>>>            ->dwc3_event_buffers_setup()
>>>>>>>               ->/*Enable interrupt by clearing  DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_INTMASK in
>>>>>>>                                                            DWC3_GEVNTSIZ*/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start IRQ Storming after enable dwc3 event in resume path
>>>>>>> =========================================================
>>>>>>> CPU0: IRQ
>>>>>>> dwc3_interrupt()
>>>>>>>     dwc3_check_event_buf()
>>>>>>>            if (evt->flags & DWC3_EVENT_PENDING)
>>>>>>>             return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CPU0: IRQ
>>>>>>> dwc3_interrupt()
>>>>>>>     dwc3_check_event_buf()
>>>>>>>            if (evt->flags & DWC3_EVENT_PENDING)
>>>>>>>             return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To fix this issue by avoiding enabling of the dwc3 event interrupt in
>>>>>>> the runtime resume path if dwc3 event processing is in progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Selvarasu Ganesan <selvarasu.g@samsung.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>     drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>>>>>>> index cb82557678dd..610792a70805 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>>>>>>> @@ -549,8 +549,12 @@ int dwc3_event_buffers_setup(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>>>>>>     			lower_32_bits(evt->dma));
>>>>>>>     	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTADRHI(0),
>>>>>>>     			upper_32_bits(evt->dma));
>>>>>>> -	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0),
>>>>>>> -			DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	/* Skip enable dwc3 event interrupt if event is processing in middle */
>>>>>>> +	if (!(evt->flags & DWC3_EVENT_PENDING))
>>>>>>> +		dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0),
>>>>>>> +				DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>     	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTCOUNT(0), 0);
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>     	return 0;
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not waking up from a hibernation. So after a soft-reset and
>>>>>> resume, the events that weren't processed are stale. They should be
>>>>>> processed prior to entering suspend or be discarded before resume.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The synchronize_irq() during suspend() was not sufficient to prevent
>>>>>> this? What are we missing here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Thinh
>>>>> I don’t think the triggering of interrupt would not be stopped even if
>>>>> do soft reset. It's because of event count is may be valid .
>>>> Ok. I think I see what you're referring to when you say "event is
>>>> processing in the middle" now.
>>>>
>>>> What you want to check is probably this in dwc3_event_buffers_setup().
>>>> Please confirm:
>>>>
>>>> if (dwc->pending_events)
>>>> 	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0),
>>>> 			DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_INTMASK | DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>>>> else
>>>> 	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0), DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>>> Yes, we are expecting the same. But, we must verify the status of
>>> evt->flags, which will indicate whether the event is currently
>>> processing in middle or not. The below code is for the reference.
>>>
>>> if (!(evt->flags & DWC3_EVENT_PENDING))
>>> 	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0),
>>> 			 DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>>> else
>>> 	dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GEVNTSIZ(0),
>>> 			DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_INTMASK | DWC3_GEVNTSIZ_SIZE(evt->length));
>> So, this happens while pending_events is set right? I need to review
>> this runtime suspend flow next week. Something doesn't look right. When

yes. You are correct. Its happening while pending_events is set.
>> there's a suspend/resume runtime or not, there's a soft disconnect. We
>> shouldn't be processing any event prior to going into suspend. Also, we
> Clarification: I mean we shouldn't process any event that happened prior
> to suspend on resume because there was a disconnect.

Agree.
>
>> shouldn't be doing soft-disconnect while connected and in operation
>> unless we specifically tell it to.
> Thinh