Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2023年5月10日 週三 下午10:40寫道： > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:59:49PM +0800, Yixuan Jiang wrote: > > Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2023年5月6日 週六 下午1:56寫道： > > > > > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 05:21:42PM +0800, yixuanjiang wrote: > > > > From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The existing locking for DPCM has several issues > > > > a) a confusing mix of card->mutex and card->pcm_mutex. > > > > b) a dpcm_lock spinlock added inconsistently and on paths that could > > > > be recursively taken. The use of irqsave/irqrestore was also overkill. > > > > > > > > The suggested model is: > > > > > > > > 1) The pcm_mutex is the top-most protection of BE links in the FE. The > > > > pcm_mutex is applied always on either the top PCM callbacks or the > > > > external call from DAPM, not taken in the internal functions. > > > > > > > > 2) the FE stream lock is taken in higher levels before invoking > > > > dpcm_be_dai_trigger() > > > > > > > > 3) when adding and deleting a BE, both the pcm_mutex and FE stream > > > > lock are taken. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > > > [clarification of commit message by plbossart] > > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207173745.15850-4-pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.15.x > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's tree? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hi Greg, > > For this patch I think it is [3/6] b7898396f4bbe160f546d0c5e9fa17cca9a7d153 > > > > >From https://lore.kernel.org/all/163953384515.1515253.13641477106348913835.b4-ty@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Seems there are total 6 patches. > > > > [1/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: use GFP_ATOMIC for dpcm structure > > commit: d8a9c6e1f6766a16cf02b4e99a629f3c5512c183 > > [2/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with that of the FE > > commit: bbf7d3b1c4f40eb02dd1dffb500ba00b0bff0303 > > [3/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: Fix and cleanup DPCM locking > > commit: b7898396f4bbe160f546d0c5e9fa17cca9a7d153 > > [4/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: serialize BE triggers > > commit: b2ae80663008a7662febe7d13f14ea1b2eb0cd51 > > [5/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: test refcount before triggering > > commit: 848aedfdc6ba25ad5652797db9266007773e44dd > > [6/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: fix BE handling of PAUSE_RELEASE > > commit: 3aa1e96a2b95e2ece198f8dd01e96818971b84df > > > > These 6 patches could directly cherry-pick to in 5.15 without conflict. > > Then please submit them for stable inclusion after you have tested that > they all work properly. But first, what bug is actually needed to be > fixed here? What is not working that this patch series fixes? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Hi Greg, The bug is, in 5.15 It will always deadlock after stop compress playback. The patch A ASoC: soc-compress: Reposition and add pcm_mutex commit: aa9ff6a4955fdba02b54fbc4386db876603703b7 >From patch A comment it is about to fix the issue by adding lock hold becasue patch B will check if lock is held. The patch B ASoC: soc-pcm: Fix and cleanup DPCM locking commit: b7898396f4bbe160f546d0c5e9fa17cca9a7d153 Patch B remove lock aquire then check if lock is already held. In 5.15 it only include patch A then cause the deadlock. [ 198.670679][ T1] Call trace: [ 198.670690][ T1] __switch_to+0x174/0x328 [ 198.670744][ T1] __schedule+0x5d0/0xaec [ 198.670784][ T1] schedule+0xc8/0x134 [ 198.670803][ T1] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x30/0x50 [ 198.670820][ T1] __mutex_lock+0x39c/0xa70 [ 198.670845][ T1] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1c/0x2c [ 198.670862][ T1] mutex_lock+0x4c/0x104 [ 198.670878][ T1] soc_pcm_hw_clean+0x38/0x16c <-- Patch B will remove lock aquire, if no patch B, it will aquire lock again then cause AA deadlock [ 198.670958][ T1] dpcm_be_dai_hw_free+0x17c/0x1b4 [ 198.670983][ T1] soc_compr_free_fe+0x84/0x158 <-- Patch A aquire the lock [ 198.671025][ T1] snd_compr_free+0xac/0x148 So is it better by revert patch A because purpose of patch A doesn't exist in 5.15 ? Or just backport full 6 patches series B to 5.15 ?
