Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ufs: ufs-qcom: Fix a few BUGs in func ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Bart,

On 2020-07-14 11:47, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 2020-07-13 19:28, Can Guo wrote:
Dumping testbus registers needs to sleep a bit intermittently as there are too many of them. Skip them for those contexts where sleep is not allowed.

Meanwhile, if ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs() calls ufs_qcom_testbus_config() from ufshcd_suspend/resume and/or clk gate/ungate context, pm_runtime_get_sync()
and ufshcd_hold() will cause racing problems. Fix it by removing the
unnecessary calls of pm_runtime_get_sync() and ufshcd_hold().

Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 17 +++++++----------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
index 2e6ddb5..3743c17 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
@@ -1604,9 +1604,6 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host *host)
 	 */
 	}
 	mask <<= offset;
-
-	pm_runtime_get_sync(host->hba->dev);
-	ufshcd_hold(host->hba, false);
 	ufshcd_rmwl(host->hba, TEST_BUS_SEL,
 		    (u32)host->testbus.select_major << 19,
 		    REG_UFS_CFG1);
@@ -1619,8 +1616,6 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host *host)
 	 * committed before returning.
 	 */
 	mb();
-	ufshcd_release(host->hba);
-	pm_runtime_put_sync(host->hba->dev);

 	return 0;
 }
@@ -1658,11 +1653,13 @@ static void ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs(struct ufs_hba *hba)

 	/* sleep a bit intermittently as we are dumping too much data */
ufs_qcom_print_hw_debug_reg_all(hba, NULL, ufs_qcom_dump_regs_wrapper);
-	udelay(1000);
-	ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
-	udelay(1000);
-	ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
-	udelay(1000);
+	if (in_task()) {
+		udelay(1000);
+		ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
+		udelay(1000);
+		ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
+		udelay(1000);
+	}
 }

It is not clear to me how udelay() calls can help in code that takes long since these functions use busy-waiting? Should the udelay() calls perhaps
be changed into cond_resched() calls?

Thanks,

Bart.

Maybe you are right, but this is not the purpose of this change. I am just
trying to make sure this func can be invoked from any contexts without
making troubles like schedule while atomic and/or race conditions.

Thanks,

Can Guo.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux