Re: [PATCH v7 13/16] usb: introduce port status lock

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

 



On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:

> In general we do not want khubd to act on port status changes that are
> the result of in progress resets or USB runtime PM operations.
> Specifically port power control testing has been able to trigger an
> unintended disconnect in hub_port_connect_change(), paraphrasing:
> 
> 	if ((portstatus & USB_PORT_STAT_CONNECTION) && udev &&
> 	    udev->state != USB_STATE_NOTATTACHED) {
> 		if (portstatus & USB_PORT_STAT_ENABLE) {
> 			/* Nothing to do */
> 		} else if (udev->state == USB_STATE_SUSPENDED &&
> 				udev->persist_enabled) {
> 			...
> 		} else {
> 			/* Don't resuscitate */;
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> ...by falling to the "Don't resuscitate" path or missing
> USB_PORT_STAT_CONNECTION because usb_port_resume() was in the middle of
> modifying the port status.
> 
> So, we want a new lock to hold off khubd for a given port while the
> child device is being suspended, resumed, or reset.  The lock ordering
> rules are now usb_lock_device() => usb_lock_port().  This is mandated by
> the device core which may hold the device_lock on the usb_device before
> invoking usb_port_{suspend|resume} which in turn take the status_lock on
> the usb_port.  We attempt to hold the status_lock for the duration of a
> port_event() run, and drop/re-acquire it when needing to take the
> device_lock.  The lock is also dropped/re-acquired during
> hub_port_reconnect().
> 
> This patch also deletes hub->busy_bits as all use cases are now covered
> by port PM runtime synchronization or the port->status_lock and it
> pushes down usb_device_lock() into usb_remote_wakeup().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>

Minor suggestions...

> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> @@ -2764,6 +2764,20 @@ static int port_is_power_on(struct usb_hub *hub, unsigned portstatus)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static void usb_lock_port(struct usb_port *port_dev)
> +		__acquires(&port_dev->status_lock)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&port_dev->status_lock);
> +	__acquire(&port_dev->status_lock);

I don't know exactly what this line does.  Is it needed?

> +}
> +
> +static void usb_unlock_port(struct usb_port *port_dev)
> +		__releases(&port_dev->status_lock)
> +{
> +	mutex_unlock(&port_dev->status_lock);
> +	__release(&port_dev->status_lock);

And likewise.

> @@ -4633,26 +4656,29 @@ static void hub_port_connect_change(struct usb_hub *hub, int port1,
>  			/* For a suspended device, treat this as a
>  			 * remote wakeup event.
>  			 */
> -			usb_lock_device(udev);
> +			usb_unlock_port(port_dev);
>  			status = usb_remote_wakeup(udev);
> -			usb_unlock_device(udev);
> +			usb_lock_port(port_dev);
>  #endif
>  		} else {
>  			/* Don't resuscitate */;
>  		}
> -
>  	}
>  	clear_bit(port1, hub->change_bits);
>  
> +	/* successfully revalidated the connection */
>  	if (status == 0)
>  		return;

These two changes should be moved into the cleanup patch.

> @@ -4782,9 +4809,11 @@ static void port_event(struct usb_hub *hub, int port1)
>  				if (status < 0)
>  					hub_port_disable(hub, port1, 1);
>  			} else {
> +				usb_unlock_port(port_dev);
>  				usb_lock_device(udev);
>  				status = usb_reset_device(udev);
>  				usb_unlock_device(udev);
> +				usb_lock_port(port_dev);
>  				connect_change = 0;
>  			}
>  		/*

Yet another reason to combine this code with the stuff immediately 
following.  You left out the unlock/lock calls for that part.

> @@ -5143,15 +5173,18 @@ static int descriptors_changed(struct usb_device *udev,
>   * if the reset wasn't even attempted.
>   *
>   * Note:
> - * The caller must own the device lock.  For example, it's safe to use
> - * this from a driver probe() routine after downloading new firmware.
> - * For calls that might not occur during probe(), drivers should lock
> - * the device using usb_lock_device_for_reset().
> + * The caller must own the device lock and the port lock, the latter is
> + * taken by usb_reset_device().  For example, it's safe to use

This is slightly awkward grammatically and a little confusing.  I
suggest putting the new phrase inside parentheses instead of setting it
off with a comma.

> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/usb.h b/drivers/usb/core/usb.h
> index dba7bf3fabc5..77a8f3d7779a 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/usb.h
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/usb.h
> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ static inline int usb_autoresume_device(struct usb_device *udev)
>  
>  static inline int usb_remote_wakeup(struct usb_device *udev)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * In the PM_RUNTIME=n case we still bounce the lock to keep
> +	 * usb_remote_wakeup() as a flush for locked device operations
> +	 */
> +	usb_lock_device(udev);
> +	usb_unlock_device(udev);
>  	return 0;
>  }

I'm pretty sure this isn't needed because we never call
usb_remote_wakeup if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME isn't enabled.  Any wakeup
requests arriving during system suspend will effectively be swallowed
up by usb_port_resume before khubd can see them.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux