On 28 August 2011 13:11, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:50:54PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
>> On 26 August 2011 18:28, Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > + Balaji,
>> >
>> > On Friday 26 August 2011 09:49 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure who's responsible for this, but the nonblocking MMC stuff is
>> >> broken on OMAPs HSMMC:
>> >>
>> >> mmcblk0: error -84 transferring data, sector 149201, nr 64, cmd response
>> >> 0x900, card status 0xb00
>> >> mmcblk0: retrying using single block read
>> >> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> >> WARNING: at /home/rmk/git/linux-2.6-rmk/lib/dma-debug.c:811
>> >> check_unmap+0x1ac/0x764()
>> >> omap_hsmmc omap_hsmmc.0: DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory
>> >> it has not allocated [device address=0x0000000080933000] [size=20480 bytes]
>> >> Modules linked in:
>> >> Backtrace:
>> >> [<c0017874>] (dump_backtrace+0x0/0x10c) from [<c02ce8ac>]
>> >> (dump_stack+0x18/0x1c)
>> >> r7:c1abfcb8 r6:c0186248 r5:c037de51 r4:0000032b
>> >> [<c02ce894>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x1c) from [<c0039ed4>]
>> >> (warn_slowpath_common+0x58/0x70)
>> >> [<c0039e7c>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x0/0x70) from [<c0039f90>]
>> >> (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x38/0x40)
>> >> r8:c1abfd50 r7:00000000 r6:00005000 r5:00000000 r4:80933000
>> >> [<c0039f58>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x0/0x40) from [<c0186248>]
>> >> (check_unmap+0x1ac/0x764)
>> >> r3:c0367d55 r2:c037e24d
>> >> [<c018609c>] (check_unmap+0x0/0x764) from [<c0186978>]
>> >> (debug_dma_unmap_sg+0x100/0x134)
>> >> [<c0186878>] (debug_dma_unmap_sg+0x0/0x134) from [<c0019770>]
>> >> (dma_unmap_sg+0x24/0x7c)
>> >> [<c001974c>] (dma_unmap_sg+0x0/0x7c) from [<c0207220>]
>> >> (omap_hsmmc_post_req+0x48/0x54)
>> >> [<c02071d8>] (omap_hsmmc_post_req+0x0/0x54) from [<c01fb644>]
>> >> (mmc_start_req+0x9c/0x128)
>> >> r4:c1a76000
>> >> [<c01fb5a8>] (mmc_start_req+0x0/0x128) from [<c02049fc>]
>> >> (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0x80/0x460)
>> >> r8:c1ab5c00 r7:00000001 r6:c1ab5824 r5:c1ab5824 r4:c1ab5c00
>> >> [<c020497c>] (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0x0/0x460) from [<c02050a8>]
>> >> (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x2cc/0x2fc)
>> >> [<c0204ddc>] (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x0/0x2fc) from [<c02056c4>]
>> >> (mmc_queue_thread+0xa0/0x104)
>> >> [<c0205624>] (mmc_queue_thread+0x0/0x104) from [<c0054f8c>]
>> >> (kthread+0x88/0x90)
>> >> [<c0054f04>] (kthread+0x0/0x90) from [<c003d9a4>] (do_exit+0x0/0x618)
>> >> r7:00000013 r6:c003d9a4 r5:c0054f04 r4:c1a7bc7c
>> >> ---[ end trace 3314ad56daf5d14f ]---
>> >>
>> >> Luckily thinks continue to work, but clearly releasing DMA mappings which
>> >> drivers don't own is bad news. Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth
>> >> to be able to investigate this at present - well, I could do but then I'd
>> >> have to drop working on the OMAP4 vs generic suspend/resume code and learn
>> >> about something I've no current clue about.
>> >>
>> > Please continue your help on generic suspend.
>> >
>> >> Can someone please investigate and fix whatever is broken.
>> >>
>> > Will find somebody to look at this issue.
>> >
>> I had a look at this and my guess is that the same mapped DMA memory
>> is unmapped twice. First the memory is unmapped in
>> omap_hsmmc_dma_cleanup() due to the mmc error, then later in
>> omap_hsmmc_post_req(). Here is a patch to resolve that. I haven't had
>> the chance to test it yet though.
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
>> index 21e4a79..7f40767 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
>> @@ -1011,6 +1011,7 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_dma_cleanup(struct
>> omap_hsmmc_host *host, int errno)
>> host->data->sg_len,
>> omap_hsmmc_get_dma_dir(host, host->data));
>> omap_free_dma(dma_ch);
>> + data->host_cookie = 0;
>> }
>> host->data = NULL;
>> }
>> @@ -1576,8 +1577,10 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_post_req(struct mmc_host
>> *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq,
>> struct mmc_data *data = mrq->data;
>>
>> if (host->use_dma) {
>> - dma_unmap_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg, data->sg_len,
>> - omap_hsmmc_get_dma_dir(host, data));
>> + if (data->host_cookie)
>> + dma_unmap_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg,
>> + data->sg_len,
>> + omap_hsmmc_get_dma_dir(host, data));
>> data->host_cookie = 0;
>>
>>
>> I also checked the mmci code for this same issue and mmci doesn't have
>> the same bug.
>> MMCI works fine in 3.1-rc2 even though the code is "wrong". I propose
>> this change.
>> @@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ static void mmci_post_request(struct mmc_host
>> *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq,
>> if (chan) {
>> if (err)
>> dmaengine_terminate_all(chan);
>> - if (err || data->host_cookie)
>> + if (data->host_cookie)
>>
>> I'll post these patches as soon as I have managed to test them or
>> sooner if I get a tested-by.
>
> Looking at MMCI, are you sure all those DMA engine terminate calls are
> correct?
>
I should probably do so together with adding better descriptions on
what happens and what the intention is.
> For example, why are we terminating all DMA engine transfers in the
> post request function?
The reason for calling DMA terminate here is to handle the case of
cleaning up an MMC request that has only been prepared in
mmci_pre_request(), and not been passed to mmci_request().
The if (err) is only true if that scenario has happened. The variable
err may need to be better defined. I can think of three states:
1. err == no error
2. err == mmc request failed
3. err == mmc request is prepared but not started
Currently "err" is only set if #3 occurs.
The parts to clean up in post_request() if #3 happens (err == true):
in mmci: DMA mapped memory and prepared DMA descriptors
in omap_hsmmc: DMA mapped memory
Now when I think more about I need to check the DMA drivers more
closely if dma_terminate_all() will free resources for prepared but
not submitted descriptors. I will have to add this support to the dma
drivers if it's missing.
> of by the driver before it told the core that the request was completed.
> If the post request function is called for the previous request, meanwhile
> the next request is in flight, terminating the DMA engine transfer will
> cause invalid state in the driver.
>
> Basically, this looks completely buggered. I think you need to review
> your changes with a thought to what happens logically with DMA and the
> MMC host drivers whenever an error occurs.
>
I agree, I need to look more closely on the error handling.
Regards,
Per
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
