Re: [PATCH] mailbox: cancel timer before starting it

Jerome Brunet
2020-10-16T18:55:00Z

On Fri 16 Oct 2020 at 19:33, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 4:00 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri 16 Oct 2020 at 10:52, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday 15 Oct 2020 at 13:45:54 (-0500), Jassi Brar wrote:
>> > [..]
>> >> > >> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> >> > >> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> >> > >> @@ -82,9 +82,13 @@ static void msg_submit(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>> >> > >> exit:
>> >> > >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> - if (!err && (chan->txdone_method & TXDONE_BY_POLL))
>> >> > >> - /* kick start the timer immediately to avoid delays */
>> >> > >> + if (!err && (chan->txdone_method & TXDONE_BY_POLL)) {
>> >> > >> + /* Disable the timer if already active ... */
>> >> > >> + hrtimer_cancel(&chan->mbox->poll_hrt);
>> >> > >> +
>> >> > >> + /* ... and kick start it immediately to avoid delays */
>> >> > >> hrtimer_start(&chan->mbox->poll_hrt, 0, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> >> > >> + }
>> >> > >> }
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> static void tx_tick(struct mbox_chan *chan, int r)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I've tracked a regression back to this commit. Details to reproduce:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Ionela,
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't have access to your platform and I don't get what is going on
>> >> > from the log below.
>> >> >
>> >> > Could you please give us a bit more details about what is going on ?
>> >> >
>> >> > All this patch does is add hrtimer_cancel().
>> >> > * It is needed if the timer had already been started, which is
>> >> > appropriate AFAIU
>> >> > * It is a NO-OP is the timer is not active.
>> >> >
>> >> Can you please try using hrtimer_try_to_cancel() instead ?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, using hrtimer_try_to_cancel() instead works for me. But doesn't
>> > this limit how effective this change is? AFAIU, this will possibly only
>> > reduce the chances for the race condition, but not solve it.
>> >
>>
>> It is also my understanding, hrtimer_try_to_cancel() would remove a
>> timer which as not already started but would return withtout doing
>> anything if the callback is already running ... which is the original
>> problem
>>
> If we are running in the callback path, hrtimer_try_to_cancel will
> return -1, in which case we could skip hrtimer_start.
> Anyways, I think simply checking for hrtimer_active should effect the same.
> I have submitted a patch, of course not tested.

Yes it sloves this race but ...

If a race is possible between a timer callback rescheduling itself (which
is not that uncommon) and another thread trying to cancel it, maybe
there is something worth fixing in hrtimer ? Also, mailbox calls
hrtimer_cancel() in unregister ... are we confident this would work ?

Any fix is by me - yours avoid killing and restarting the timer :) but
it feels like we are working around an issue that might bite us back
later on.

>
> Thanks