From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751192AbdAPTXi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:23:38 -0500
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:11950 "EHLO mga02.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750840AbdAPTXg (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:23:36 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,240,1477983600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="49411418"
From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Memory barrier needed with wake_up_process()?
In-Reply-To: <87shoi967i.fsf@linux.intel.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1701161207000.17898-100000@netrider.rowland.org> <87shoi967i.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:19:20 +0200
Message-ID: <87mveq95jb.fsf@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


Hi,

Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com> writes:
> Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> writes:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for the long delay, I finally have more information on this. All
>>> this time I was doing something that I never considered to matter: I've
>>> been running host and peripheral on the same machine. Now that I have
>>> tracepoints on xHCI as well, I could see that these 30 seconds of
>>> "nothing" is actuall full of xHCI activity and I can see that for the
>>> duration of these 30 seconds preempt depth on the CPU that (eventually)
>>> queues a request on dwc3, is always > 1 (sometimes 2, most of the time
>>> 1). My conclusion from that is that xHCI (or usbcore ?!?) locks the CPU
>>> and g_mass_storage is spinning for over 30 seconds at which point
>>> storage.ko (host side class driver) dequeues the request.
>>> 
>>> I'll see if I can capture a fresh trace with both xHCI and dwc3 with
>>> this happening, but probably not today (testing stuff for -rc).
>>
>> Does anything change if the host and peripheral are separate machines?
>
> couldn't reproduce the problem yet ;-)

*yet* is a keyword here. I wouldn't call this problem "done" until I
 successfully run my test case for at least a week.

-- 
balbi