public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
	hongwus@codeaurora.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
	Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Fix imbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold()
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:11:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9abe84856f5d2f6eced90a55638743c@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5470be4c-cfa4-ebe5-a817-e53f26c7eaf6@acm.org>

On 2020-07-14 11:41, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-07-13 19:28, Can Guo wrote:
>> The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be
>> decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if
>> specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that
>> scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is
>> queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold() 
>> and
>> ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work()
>> returns true.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> index ebf7a95..33214bb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -1611,12 +1611,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool 
>> async)
>>  		 */
>>  		/* fallthrough */
>>  	case CLKS_OFF:
>> -		ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
>>  		hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON;
>>  		trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
>>  					hba->clk_gating.state);
>> -		queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
>> -			   &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work);
>> +		if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
>> +			       &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work))
>> +			ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
>>  		/*
>>  		 * fall through to check if we should wait for this
>>  		 * work to be done or not.
> 
> Since "ungate_work" involves calling ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests() and
> since this patch changes the order in which 
> ufshcd_scsi_block_requests()
> and queue_work() are called, I think this patch introduces a race
> condition. Has it been considered to leave the 
> ufshcd_scsi_block_requests()
> call where it is and to call ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests() if
> queue_work() fails?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.

Hi Bart,

The racing does not exist due to we still hold the spin lock here. 
Before
release the spin lock, the ungate_work, even it starts to run, cannot
move forward as it needs to require the spin lock once in the entrance.

static void ufshcd_ungate_work(struct work_struct *work)
{
...
         spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
         if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON) {
                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
                 goto unblock_reqs;
         }
...
}

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-14  4:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1594693693-22466-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
2020-07-14  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] scsi: ufs: Add checks before setting clk-gating states Can Guo
2020-07-14  3:38   ` Bart Van Assche
2020-07-14  4:11     ` Can Guo
2020-07-14  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Fix imbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold() Can Guo
2020-07-14  3:41   ` Bart Van Assche
2020-07-14  4:11     ` Can Guo [this message]
2020-07-14  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ufs: ufs-qcom: Fix a few BUGs in func ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs() Can Guo
2020-07-14  3:47   ` Bart Van Assche
2020-07-14  4:17     ` Can Guo
2020-07-14  2:28 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: Fix up and simplify error recovery mechanism Can Guo
2020-07-14  3:52   ` Bart Van Assche
2020-07-14  4:26     ` Can Guo
2020-07-14  9:13       ` Can Guo

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=b9abe84856f5d2f6eced90a55638743c@codeaurora.org \
    --to=cang@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
    --cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
    --cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hongwus@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=nguyenb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=salyzyn@google.com \
    --cc=saravanak@google.com \
    --cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.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