Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] scsi: ufs: Fix ufshcd_hold() caused scheduling while atomic

Can Guo
2020-02-10T01:59:33Z

On 2020-02-10 09:28, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-02-06 18:28, Avri Altman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>
>>> The async version of ufshcd_hold(async == true), which is only called
>>> in queuecommand path as for now, is expected to work in atomic
>>> context,
>>> thus it should not sleep or schedule out. When it runs into the
>>> condition
>>> that clocks are ON but link is still in hibern8 state, it should bail
>>> out
>>> without flushing the clock ungate work.
>>
>> Fixes: f2a785ac2312 (scsi: ufshcd: Fix race between clk scaling and
>> ungate work)
>
> Sorry, missed this one, if another version is needed, I will add this
> line.
>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hongwu Su <hongwus@codeaurora.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 5 +++++
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> index bbc2607..e8f7f9d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> @@ -1518,6 +1518,11 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool
>>> async)
>>> */
>>> if (ufshcd_can_hibern8_during_gating(hba) &&
>>> ufshcd_is_link_hibern8(hba)) {
>>> + if (async) {
>>> + rc = -EAGAIN;
>>> + hba->clk_gating.active_reqs--;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock,
>>> flags);
>>> flush_work(&hba->clk_gating.ungate_work);
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock,
>>> flags);
>> Since now the above code is shared in all cases,
>> Maybe find a more economical way to pack it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Avri
>>
>>
>
> There are only 2 of this same code pieces in ufshcd_hold() and located
> in different cases, meanwhile there can be fall through, I don't see
> a good way to pack it, can you suggest if you have any ideas?
>

Now, with this patch, there are 2 same code snippets located in CLKS_ON
and REQ_CLKS_ON. If we somehow pack them, say bring in a inline func to
pack them, we would have to tear it down later if we have to fix
something for only one specific case by adding lines into the snippet.
And actually this is the truth, we do have some fixes for CLKS_ON's case
but not yet uploaded, so let's leave it as it is for now.

> Regards,
> Can Guo.
>
>>> --
>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
>>> Forum,
>>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project