On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:47:59AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 05:38:16 +0200, > Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:03:19PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:12:43 +0200, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:36:57AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > Again, my *only* point is about the sleep. You addition was: > > > > > > > > > > + * Context: Any context in which lock of PCM substream is already acquired. This function may not > > > > > + * sleep. > > > > > > > > > > where "This function may not sleep" is stated incorrectly. > > > > > > > > Hm. Would I request you to show the detail case that the call of function > > > > (snd_pcm_period_elapsed_under_stream_lock()) goes sleep except for > > > > driver-side implementation of snd_pcm_ops.{pointer, trigger, > > > > get_time_info}? At least, in callgraph I find no function call to > > > > yield... > > > > > > True. But the fact that those callbacks may sleep means that the > > > function would go sleeping after all. > > > > Thanks. After all, our discussion comes from the ambiguity that what > > has responsibility at yielding processor under the lock. I think it helpful > > to describe devide responsibilities about the yielding. I'm glad for you > > to review patch below: > > Well, I don't think it's worth to mention "ALSA core may not sleep". > It's just casually so for now, but it doesn't mean that this will be > guaranteed in future. After all, this function call may sleep in > the nonatomic mode (that's the very reason for that mode!), and the > caller has to be prepared for that, no matter whether you do sleep in > the callbacks or not. I have an opinion that we should guarantee it as long as maintaining existent in-kernel drivers, which call it in hw/sw IRQ context. This is not the issue 'casually so for now'. If you had a plan to rewrite or drop the drivers near future, you could say it. > > ======== 8< -------- > > > > >From 98e1b8332a95935ae875c637d3ddc27e68689aa0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:03:46 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH] ALSA: pcm: add context section for documentation about > > period-elapsed kernel APIs > > > > This commit fulfils documentation of period-elapsed kernel APIs with their > > context section. > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > sound/core/pcm_lib.c | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c > > index 7d5883432085..5d28d63a3216 100644 > > --- a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c > > +++ b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c > > @@ -1803,6 +1803,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_pcm_lib_ioctl); > > * - .get_time_info - to retrieve audio time stamp if needed. > > * > > * Even if more than one periods have elapsed since the last call, you have to call this only once. > > + * > > + * Context: Any context in which lock of PCM substream is already acquired. The function may not > > + * sleep by ALSA PCM core. The function may sleep in the above callbacks by driver which should > > + * configures PCM device for it (@snd_pcm.nonatomic). > > */ > > void snd_pcm_period_elapsed_under_stream_lock(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) > > { > > @@ -1836,6 +1840,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_pcm_period_elapsed_under_stream_lock); > > * It's typically called by any type of IRQ handler when hardware IRQ occurs to notify event that > > * the batch of audio data frames as the same size as the period of buffer is already processed in > > * audio data transmission. > > + * > > + * Context: Any context in which lock of PCM substream is not acquired yet. It depends on > > + * configuration of PCM device (@snd_pcm.nonatomic) by driver whether the function may or may not > > + * sleep by operating lock of PCM substream. > > */ > > void snd_pcm_period_elapsed(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) > > { > > -- > > 2.27.0 > > > > ======== 8< -------- > > > > Thanks > > > > Takashi Sakamoto Regards Takashi Sakamoto