Hi Krzysztof,
On 18 January 2016 at 05:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18.01.2016 06:01, Anand Moon wrote:
>> The introduction of the mutex in commit d1cd21427747 ("pwm: Set enable
>> state properly on failed call to enable") effectively makes all PWM drivers
>> potentially sleeping. That in turn makes the .can_sleep field obsolete
>> since all drivers can now sleep.
>>
>> Changes fix the below bug by using spinlocks instead of mutex
>>
>> [ 22.300239] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 22.307212] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2257, name: sh
>> [ 22.313454] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>> [ 23.655232] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 23.662174] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2404, name: upowerd
>> [ 23.668932] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>> [ 25.010207] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 25.017125] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2262, name: indicator-keybo
>> [ 25.024491] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>> [ 26.355237] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 26.362141] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>> [ 26.368728] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>> [ 27.680220] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 27.687119] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>> [ 27.693698] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>> [ 29.005199] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>> [ 29.012124] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>>
>> [thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx: Fixed the commit message]
>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes logs: droped my prevoius approch.
>> ---
>> drivers/pwm/core.c | 10 +++++-----
>> include/linux/pwm.h | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
>> index d24ca5f..58e7091 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> pwm->pwm = chip->base + i;
>> pwm->hwpwm = i;
>> pwm->polarity = polarity;
>> - mutex_init(&pwm->lock);
>> + spin_lock_init(&pwm->lock);
>>
>> radix_tree_insert(&pwm_tree, pwm->pwm, pwm);
>> }
>> @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>> if (!pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity)
>> return -ENOSYS;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&pwm->lock);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&pwm->lock);
>
> Anand,
>
> Thank you for the effort put into digging into this issue. Unfortunately
> this approach is bad. You cannot fix one issue without looking at the
> big picture of the given subsystem. This patch does exactly this - fixes
> your warning but probably introduces bugs all over the place.
>
> Although the set_polarity callback (called under the lock) is not
> described as sleeping-allowed but some implementations do it in a
> sleeping way. This is really easy to find, e.g.:
> pwm_omap_dmtimer_set_polarity.
>
> This means: no.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Already within function pwm_samsung_set_invert is protected by
spin_lock_irqsave(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
So no need to introduce another lock to control pwm_samsung_set_polarity.
Best Regards.
-Anand Moon
>>
>> if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>> err = -EBUSY;
>> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>> pwm->polarity = polarity;
>>
>> unlock:
>> - mutex_unlock(&pwm->lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&pwm->lock);
>> return err;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_set_polarity);
>> @@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
>> if (!pwm)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&pwm->lock);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&pwm->lock);
>>
>> if (!test_and_set_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags)) {
>> err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
>> @@ -514,7 +514,7 @@ int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
>> clear_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags);
>> }
>>
>> - mutex_unlock(&pwm->lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&pwm->lock);
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
>> index cfc3ed4..86ad4c2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>> #define __LINUX_PWM_H
>>
>> #include <linux/err.h>
>> -#include <linux/mutex.h>
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>
>> struct pwm_device;
>> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ struct pwm_device {
>> unsigned int pwm;
>> struct pwm_chip *chip;
>> void *chip_data;
>> - struct mutex lock;
>> + spinlock_t lock;
>>
>> unsigned int period;
>> unsigned int duty_cycle;
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
