Re: [PATCH v8 08/13] coresight: etm4x: fix inconsistencies with sysfs configuration

[Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:25:10AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 07:16:42PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > I try best to not paste any non-sense AI reviews, record one from
> > > Sashiko [1]:
> > > 
> > >  | If a user writes to a sysfs attribute like pe_sel_store(), it acquires
> > >  | drvdata->spinlock without disabling interrupts. If an IPI is then handled
> > >  | on the same CPU, etm4_enable_sysfs_smp_call() will call
> > >  | cscfg_csdev_enable_active_config() which attempts to acquire the exact
> > >  | same spinlock, hanging the CPU."
> > > 
> > > The flow for acquiring drvdata->spinlock in SMP call is:
> > > 
> > >   etm4_enable_sysfs_smp_call()
> > >     `> cscfg_csdev_enable_active_config()
> > >          `> cscfg_csdev_enable_config()
> > >               `> cscfg_prog_config()
> > >                    `> cscfg_set_on_enable()
> > >                         `> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(feat_csdev->drv_spinlock, flags);
> > > 
> > > We might expect the complaint from LOCKDEP with this patch.
> > 
> > Hmm. I miss the this point and there is two solution:
> > 
> >   1. Remove "feat_csdev->drv_spinlock"
> > 
> >     Before this patch, the "feat_csdev->drv_spinlock" is for
> >     synchronizing with the "drvdata->config". However,
> >     After this patch, the the configfs only show the "active" config
> >     and the active config can be used only after taking the "mode".
> > 
> >     Furthermore, the sysfs only uses the "config" not "active config",
> >     there is no race between the sysfs and the configfs.
> > 
> >     When I check the, "feat_csdev->drv_spinlock" is for the
> >     active/deactive the configfs config, so I seems safe to remove.
> 
> My interpretation is:
> 
> After this series, we updates active_config on local CPU within atomic
> context, it is nature to be protected. So we don't need to use
> feat_csdev->drv_spinlock when updating active_config.
> 
> If so, it is fine for me to remove feat_csdev->drv_spinlock.

Yes. but if I add a little bit more comment. the "active_config"
is accessed after "mode changed (perf of sysfs)" it accesses atomically
and the "active_config" is refered from the configfs not "config"
after this patch. So we can remove the "feat_csdev->drv_spinlock".

> 
> >   2. sysfs with _irqsave?
> > 
> >     However, this make a latency for the sysfs.
> > 
> > I think the (1) seems good.
> > 
> > Any comments? @Suzuki and @Leo?
> 
> Yeah, it is good to wait a bit for Suzuki if any ideas.

Okay. If he doesn't have any particular comment, I'll send with next
version.

Thanks!

-- 
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun