Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] scsi: ufs: atomic update for clkgating_enable

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

 



On 2020-10-26 14:13, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 10/26, Can Guo wrote:
On 2020-10-24 23:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When giving a stress test which enables/disables clkgating, we hit
> device
> timeout sometimes. This patch avoids subtle racy condition to address
> it.
>
> If we use __ufshcd_release(), I've seen that gate_work can be called in
> parallel
> with ungate_work, which results in UFS timeout when doing hibern8.
> Should avoid it.
>

I don't understand this comment. gate_work and ungate_work are queued on an ordered workqueue and an ordered workqueue executes at most one work item at any given time in the queued order. How can the two run in parallel?

When I hit UFS stuck, I saw this by clkgating tracepoint.

- REQ_CLK_OFF
- CLKS_OFF
- REQ_CLK_OFF
- REQ_CLKS_ON
..


I don't see how can you tell that the two works are running in parallel
just from above trace. May I know what is the exact error by "UFS timeout
when doing hibern8"?

By using __ufshcd_release() here, I do see one potential issue if your test quickly toggles on/off of clk_gating - disable it, enable it, disable it and enable it, which will cause that __ufshcd_release() being called twice, meaning we queue two gate_works back to back. So can you try below code and let me know if it helps or not? I am OK with your current change, but I would like to
understand the problem. Thanks.

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index 1791bce..3eee438 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -2271,6 +2271,8 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
        unsigned long flags;

        spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
+       if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_OFF)
+               goto rel_lock;
        /*
         * In case you are here to cancel this work the gating state
         * would be marked as REQ_CLKS_ON. In this case save time by

Regards,

Can Guo.

By using active_req, I don't see any problem.


Thanks,

Can Guo.

> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index b8f573a02713..e0b479f9eb8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1807,19 +1807,19 @@ static ssize_t
> ufshcd_clkgate_enable_store(struct device *dev,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>
>  	value = !!value;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>  	if (value == hba->clk_gating.is_enabled)
>  		goto out;
>
> -	if (value) {
> -		ufshcd_release(hba);
> -	} else {
> -		spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +	if (value)
> +		hba->clk_gating.active_reqs--;
> +	else
>  		hba->clk_gating.active_reqs++;
> -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> -	}
>
>  	hba->clk_gating.is_enabled = value;
>  out:
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>  	return count;
>  }



[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