public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: "Tokunori Ikegami" <ikegami_to@yahoo.co.jp>
Cc: "'liujian \(CE\)'" <liujian56@huawei.com>,
	"'Tokunori Ikegami'" <ikegami.t@gmail.com>,
	<keescook@chromium.org>, <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
	<ikegami@allied-telesis.co.jp>, <richard@nod.at>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	<dwmw2@infradead.org>, <vigneshr@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cfi: fix deadloop in cfi_cmdset_0002.c do_write_buffer
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:07:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190301170715.68d89e84@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <005a01d4d03e$39b0e0f0$ad12a2d0$@yahoo.co.jp>

Hi Ikegami,

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:51:16 +0900
"Tokunori Ikegami" <ikegami_to@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

> > Except this version no longer does what Vignesh suggested. See how you
> > no longer test if chip_good() is true if time_after() returns true. So,
> > imagine the thread entering this function is preempted just after the
> > first chip_good() test, and resumed a few ms later. time_after() will
> > return true, but chip_good() might also return true, and you ignore it.  
> 
> I think that the following 3 versions will be worked for time_after() as a same result and follow the Vignesh-san suggestion.

Let me show you how they are different:

> 
> 1. Original Vignesh-san suggestion
> 
> 	if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> 		xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> 		goto op_done;
> 	}

--> thread preempted here
==> chip_good() test becomes valid here
--> thread resumed here, but timeout has expired

> 
> 	if (time_after(jiffies, timeo)) {

you enter this branch

> 		/* Test chip_good() if TRUE incorrectly again so write failure by time_after() can be avoided. */
> 		if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {

chip_good() returns true

> 			xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> 			goto op_done;
> 		}
> 		break;
> 	}
> 
> 2. Liujian-san v3 patch
> 
> 	/* Test chip_good() if FALSE correctly so write failure by time_after() can be avoided. */

--> thread preempted here
==> chip_good() test becomes valid here
--> thread resumed here, but timeout has expired

> 	if (time_after(jiffies, timeo) && !chip_good(map, adr))

You do not enter this branch because the chip_good() test is done once
more in case of timeout.

> 		break;
> 
> 	if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> 		xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> 		goto op_done;
> 	}
> 
> 3. My idea
> 
> 	/* Save current jiffies value before chip_good() to avoid write failure by time_after() without testing chip_good() again. */
> 	unsigned long now = jiffies;
> 
> 	if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> 		xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> 		goto op_done;
> 	}
> 

--> thread preempted here
==> chip_good() test becomes valid here
--> thread resumed here, but timeout has expired

> 	if (time_after(now, timeo))

You do enter this branch, and erroneously report a failure.

> 		break;
> 

See now why your version is not correct?

Regards,

Boris

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-03-01 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-26 14:00 [PATCH v3] cfi: fix deadloop in cfi_cmdset_0002.c do_write_buffer Liu Jian
2019-02-28 14:25 ` Tokunori Ikegami
2019-02-28 15:12   ` liujian (CE)
2019-02-28 15:42     ` Boris Brezillon
     [not found]       ` <005a01d4d03e$39b0e0f0$ad12a2d0$@yahoo.co.jp>
2019-03-01 16:07         ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2019-03-01 16:54           ` Tokunori Ikegami
2019-03-01 16:47         ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2019-03-01 16:59           ` Tokunori Ikegami
2019-03-01 17:43             ` Boris Brezillon
     [not found]               ` <001c01d4d057$f68572e0$e39058a0$@yahoo.co.jp>
2019-03-02  8:57                 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2019-03-01 19:56 ` Boris Brezillon

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=20190301170715.68d89e84@collabora.com \
    --to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
    --cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=ikegami.t@gmail.com \
    --cc=ikegami@allied-telesis.co.jp \
    --cc=ikegami_to@yahoo.co.jp \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=liujian56@huawei.com \
    --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.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