On 1/3/24 17:24, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
In IO centric scenarios, especially during a period that
many IO requests are submitted to a same HW queue at the same
time, it's found that one reqeust overwrote a SQ entry
that had been already occupied by another request submitted
in the past. And it eventually led to command timed-out
because one of two requests were overwritten, which could not
be completed.
[ 74.995185][ T176] exynos-ufs 17100000.ufs: ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag 30
Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int task_tag,
if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
- struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
+ struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
+ dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock
protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@xxxxxxxxxxx/#t
Thanks,
Bart.
