On Tue, May 13, 2014, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Seungwon,
> >
> > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2014, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Yuvaraj Kumar <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > Any comments on this patch?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I'll just add that without this fix, running the tuning loop for UHS
> > >> modes is not reliable on dw_mmc because errors will happen and you
> > >> will eventually hit this race and hang. This can happen any time
> > >> there is tuning like during boot or during resume from suspend.
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Yuvaraj Kumar C D
> > >> > <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> From: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If we happened to get a data error at just the wrong time the dw_mmc
> > >> >> driver could get into a state where it would never complete its
> > >> >> request. That would leave the caller just hanging there.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> We fix this two ways and both of the two fixes on their own appear to
> > >> >> fix the problems we've seen:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 1. Fix a race in the tasklet where the interrupt setting the data
> > >> >> error happens _just after_ we check for it, then we get a
> > >> >> EVENT_XFER_COMPLETE. We fix this by repeating a bit of code.
> > > I think repeating is not good approach to fix race.
> > > In your case, XFER_COMPLETE preceded data error and DTO didn't come?
> > > It seems strange case.
> > > I want to know actual error value if you can reproduce.
> >
> > XFER_COMPLETE didn't necessarily precede data error. Imagine this scenario:
> >
> > 1. Check for data error: nope
> > 2. Interrupt happens and we get a data error and immediately xfer complete
> > 3. Check for xfer complete: yup
> >
> > That's the state that we are handling.
> >
> > The system that dw_mmc uses where the interrupt handler has no locking
> > makes it incredibly difficult to get things right. Can you propose an
> > alternate fix that would avoid the race?
> Thank you for detailed scenario.
> You're right.
> Have you consider using spin_lock() in interrupt handler?
> Then, we'll need to change spin_lock() to spin_lock_irqsave() in tasklet func.
> And other locks in driver may need to be adjusted properly.
>
> To return above scenario:
> 1. Check for data error: nope
> 2. Check for xfer complete: nope -> escape tasklet.
> 3. Interrupt happens and we get a data error and immediately xfer complete
> 4. Check for data error (Again in tasklet) : yup
>
> How about this change?
>
> Thanks,
> Seungwon Jeon
> >
> >
> > >> >> 2. Fix it so that if we detect that we've got an error in the "data
> > >> >> busy" state and we're not going to do anything else we end the
> > >> >> request and unblock anyone waiting.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> >> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > >> >> index 1d77431..4c589f1 100644
> > >> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > >> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > >> >> @@ -1300,6 +1300,14 @@ static void dw_mci_tasklet_func(unsigned long priv)
> > >> >> /* fall through */
> > >> >>
> > >> >> case STATE_SENDING_DATA:
> > >> >> + /*
> > >> >> + * We could get a data error and never a transfer
> > >> >> + * complete so we'd better check for it here.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * Note that we don't really care if we also got a
> > >> >> + * transfer complete; stopping the DMA and sending an
> > >> >> + * abort won't hurt.
> > >> >> + */
> > >> >> if (test_and_clear_bit(EVENT_DATA_ERROR,
> > >> >> &host->pending_events)) {
> > >> >> dw_mci_stop_dma(host);
> > >> >> @@ -1313,7 +1321,29 @@ static void dw_mci_tasklet_func(unsigned long priv)
> > >> >> break;
> > >> >>
> > >> >> set_bit(EVENT_XFER_COMPLETE, &host->completed_events);
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> + /*
> > >> >> + * Handle an EVENT_DATA_ERROR that might have shown up
> > >> >> + * before the transfer completed. This might not have
> > >> >> + * been caught by the check above because the interrupt
> > >> >> + * could have gone off between the previous check and
> > >> >> + * the check for transfer complete.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * Technically this ought not be needed assuming we
> > >> >> + * get a DATA_COMPLETE eventually (we'll notice the
> > >> >> + * error and end the request), but it shouldn't hurt.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * This has the advantage of sending the stop command.
> > >> >> + */
> > >> >> + if (test_and_clear_bit(EVENT_DATA_ERROR,
> > >> >> + &host->pending_events)) {
> > >> >> + dw_mci_stop_dma(host);
> > >> >> + send_stop_abort(host, data);
> > >> >> + state = STATE_DATA_ERROR;
> > >> >> + break;
> > >> >> + }
> > >> >> prev_state = state = STATE_DATA_BUSY;
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> /* fall through */
> > >> >>
> > >> >> case STATE_DATA_BUSY:
> > >> >> @@ -1336,6 +1366,23 @@ static void dw_mci_tasklet_func(unsigned long priv)
> > >> >> /* stop command for open-ended transfer*/
> > >> >> if (data->stop)
> > >> >> send_stop_abort(host, data);
> > >> >> + } else {
> > >> >> + /*
> > >> >> + * If we don't have a command complete now we'll
> > >> >> + * never get one since we just reset everything;
> > >> >> + * better end the request.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * If we do have a command complete we'll fall
> > >> >> + * through to the SENDING_STOP command and
> > >> >> + * everything will be peachy keen.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * TODO: I guess we shouldn't send a stop?
Please remove TODO:
We already reset controller in dw_mci_data_complete() through "mmc: dw_mmc: change to use recommended reset procedure"?
I guess it depends on that patch.
Then, we don't need to stop sequence anymore.
Thanks,
Seungwon Jeon
> > >> >> + */
> > >> >> + if (!test_bit(EVENT_CMD_COMPLETE,
> > >> >> + &host->pending_events)) {
> > >> >> + dw_mci_request_end(host, mrq);
> > >> >> + goto unlock;
> > >> >> + }
> > > Can you explain what happens above?
> > > What is it for?
> >
> > This was an alternate fix for the above, but appears to actually hit
> > in practice too.
> >
> > Said another way: if we don't add the extra checking for
> > EVENT_DATA_ERROR (above) we'll end up here. ...and if we ever get
> > into this "else" and don't do _something_ then we'll wedge forever.
> >
> > -Doug
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
--
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
