On 10/27, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-10-27 03:51, 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.
> >
> > Note that, this requires a patch to address the device stuck by
> > REQ_CLKS_OFF in
> > __ufshcd_release().
> >
> > The fix is "scsi: ufs: avoid to call REQ_CLKS_OFF to CLKS_OFF".
>
> Why don't you just squash the fix into this one?
I'm seeing this patch just revealed that 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 cc8d5f0c3fdc..6c9269bffcbd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -1808,19 +1808,19 @@ 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)
> > + __ufshcd_release(hba);
> > + 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;
> > }
