public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
To: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Cc: k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix race in residue reporting
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:40:49 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563DF151.2010307@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1446808295-23149-1-git-send-email-sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>

W dniu 06.11.2015 o 20:11, Sjoerd Simons pisze:
> When a transfer completes there is a small window between the descriptor
> being unset as the current active one in the thread and it being marked
> as done. This causes the residue to be incorrectly set when
> pl330_tx_status is run in that window. Practically this caused
> issue for me with audio playback as the residue goes up during a
> transfer (as the in-progress transfer is no longer accounted for),
> which makes the higher levels think the audio ringbuffer wrapped around
> and thus did a sudden big jump forward.
> 
> To resolve this, add a field protected by the dma engine lock to
> indicate the transfer is done but the status hasn't been updated yet.
> 
> Also fix the locking in pl330_tx_status, as the function inspects the
> threads req_running field and queries the dma engine for the current
> state of the running transfer the dma engine lock needs to be held to
> ensure the active descriptor doesn't change underneath it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>
> 
> ---
> 
>  drivers/dma/pl330.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> index 17ee758..6c8243b 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,8 @@ struct dma_pl330_desc {
>  	struct pl330_reqcfg rqcfg;
>  
>  	enum desc_status status;
> +	/* Transfer completed, but not yet moved to DONE state */
> +	bool xferred;
>  
>  	int bytes_requested;
>  	bool last;
> @@ -1463,6 +1465,9 @@ static void dma_pl330_rqcb(struct dma_pl330_desc *desc, enum pl330_op_err err)
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pch->lock, flags);
>  
>  	desc->status = DONE;
> +	spin_lock(&pch->thread->dmac->lock);
> +	desc->xferred = false;
> +	spin_unlock(&pch->thread->dmac->lock);
>  
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pch->lock, flags);
>  
> @@ -1595,6 +1600,7 @@ static int pl330_update(struct pl330_dmac *pl330)
>  
>  			/* Detach the req */
>  			descdone = thrd->req[active].desc;
> +			descdone->xferred = true;
>  			thrd->req[active].desc = NULL;

Looking at the code indeed the small window could happen. How can I
reproduce it? Can you describe your system?

As for the change itself, how about adding a new value to desc_status?
Now you are actually introducing a semi-status field.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

>  
>  			thrd->req_running = -1;
> @@ -2250,13 +2256,14 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pch->lock, flags);
> +	spin_lock(&pch->thread->dmac->lock);
>  
>  	if (pch->thread->req_running != -1)
>  		running = pch->thread->req[pch->thread->req_running].desc;
>  
>  	/* Check in pending list */
>  	list_for_each_entry(desc, &pch->work_list, node) {
> -		if (desc->status == DONE)
> +		if (desc->xferred || desc->status == DONE)
>  			transferred = desc->bytes_requested;
>  		else if (running && desc == running)
>  			transferred =
> @@ -2281,6 +2288,7 @@ pl330_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
>  		if (desc->last)
>  			residual = 0;
>  	}
> +	spin_unlock(&pch->thread->dmac->lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pch->lock, flags);
>  
>  out:
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-07 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-06 11:11 [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix race in residue reporting Sjoerd Simons
2015-11-07 12:40 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2015-11-09 13:12   ` Sjoerd Simons
2015-11-10  1:44     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski

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=563DF151.2010307@samsung.com \
    --to=k.kozlowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk \
    --cc=vinod.koul@intel.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