On Dec 25 2015 04:10, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Dec 24 Stefan Richter wrote:
>> On Dec 24 Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Between bootstrap, firmware loading and post configuration, some bus resets
>>> are observed.
>>>
>>> This commit offloads most processing of probe function into workqueue and
>>> schedules the workqueue after successive bus resets. This has an effect to
>>> get correct hardware information and avoid involvement to bus reset storm.
>>>
>>> For code simplicity, this change effects all of Dice-based models, i.e.
>>> Dice II, Dice Jr., Dice Mini and Dice III. Due to the same reason, sound
>>> card instance is kept till card free function even if some errors are
>>> detected in the workqueue.
>> [...]
>>> --- a/sound/firewire/dice/dice.c
>>> +++ b/sound/firewire/dice/dice.c
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>> #define WEISS_CATEGORY_ID 0x00
>>> #define LOUD_CATEGORY_ID 0x10
>>>
>>> +#define PROBE_DELAY_MS (2 * MSEC_PER_SEC)
>>> +
>>> static int check_dice_category(struct fw_unit *unit)
>>> {
>>> struct fw_device *device = fw_parent_device(unit);
>>> @@ -185,6 +187,9 @@ static void dice_card_free(struct snd_card *card)
>>> {
>>> struct snd_dice *dice = card->private_data;
>>>
>>> + /* The workqueue for registration uses the memory block. */
>>> + cancel_work_sync(&dice->dwork.work);
>>
>> According to the kerneldoc comment at cancel_work_sync, this should
>> actually be cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dice->dwork);.
>>
>>> +
>>> snd_dice_stream_destroy_duplex(dice);
>>> snd_dice_transaction_destroy(dice);
>>> fw_unit_put(dice->unit);
>>> @@ -192,6 +197,66 @@ static void dice_card_free(struct snd_card *card)
>>> mutex_destroy(&dice->mutex);
>>> }
>
> Another comment to dice_card_free() which is aside from this patch:
>
> You are calling mutex_destroy(&dice->mutex) here. But if I am right in my
> understanding that dice_card_free() is called from dice_remove(), then
> this is wrong because dice_card_free() still holding the mutex.
>
> I am not sure what the proper fix is. Perhaps just never perform
> mutex_destroy().
Indeed.
I decide to move the cancel_work_sync() to .remove callback.
(actually, it should be cancel_delayed_work_sync().) After .remove
callback, .update callback is not called anymore therefore no works are
schedulled for the registration.
Then, the mutex_lock()/mutex_unlock() is not need for this purpose. When
sound card is released, the work is confirmed to finished and
unschedulled anymore because .remove is called before.
>>> +static void do_registration(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +{
>>> + struct snd_dice *dice = container_of(work, struct snd_dice, dwork.work);
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&dice->mutex);
>>
>> So the worker needs to obtain &dice->mutex. But...
>>
>> [...]
>>> @@ -263,14 +307,25 @@ static void dice_remove(struct fw_unit *unit)
>>> {
>>> struct snd_dice *dice = dev_get_drvdata(&unit->device);
>>>
>>> + /* For a race condition of struct snd_card.shutdown. */
>>> + mutex_lock(&dice->mutex);
>>> +
>>> /* No need to wait for releasing card object in this context. */
>>> snd_card_free_when_closed(dice->card);
>>> +
>>> + mutex_unlock(&dice->mutex);
>>> }
>>
>> ...if I read snd_card_free_when_closed() and its surrounding code
>> correctly, then dice_card_free() is called from within this, which can
>> cause a deadlock. Right?
>>
>> If so, then it seems to me that cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dice->dwork)
>> should be moved out of dice_card_free() and be put at the beginning of
>> dice_remove().
Thanks
Takashi Sakamoto
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
