lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible dead lock in clock scaling
On 2021-09-30 02:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/28/21 8:31 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2021-09-18 01:27, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 9/16/21 6:51 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>> Assume a scenario where task A and B call ufshcd_devfreq_scale()
>>>> simultaneously. After task B calls downgrade_write() [1], but before
>>>> it
>>>> calls down_read() [3], if task A calls down_write() [2], when task B
>>>> calls
>>>> down_read() [3], it will lead to dead lock.
>>>
>>> Something is wrong with the above description. The downgrade_write()
>>> call is
>>> not followed by down_read() but by up_read(). Additionally, I don't
>>> see how
>>> concurrent calls of ufshcd_devfreq_scale() could lead to a deadlock.
>>
>> As mentioned in the commit msg, the down_read() [3] is from
>> ufshcd_wb_ctrl().
>>
>> Task A -
>> down_write [2]
>> ufshcd_clock_scaling_prepare
>> ufshcd_devfreq_scale
>> ufshcd_clkscale_enable_store
>>
>> Task B -
>> down_read [3]
>> ufshcd_exec_dev_cmd
>> ufshcd_query_flag
>> ufshcd_wb_ctrl
>> downgrade_write [1]
>> ufshcd_devfreq_scale
>> ufshcd_devfreq_target
>> devfreq_set_target
>> update_devfreq
>> devfreq_performance_handler
>> governor_store
>>
>>
>>> If one thread calls downgrade_write() and another thread calls
>>> down_write()
>>> immediately, that down_write() call will block until the other thread
>>> has called up_read()
>>> without triggering a deadlock.
>>
>> Since the down_write() caller is blocked, the down_read() caller,
>> which comes after
>> down_write(), is blocked too, no? downgrade_write() keeps lock owner
>> as it is, but
>> it does not change the fact that readers and writers can be blocked by
>> each other.
>
> Please use the upstream function names when posting upstream patches.
> I think that
> ufshcd_wb_ctrl() has been renamed into ufshcd_wb_toggle().
>
> So the deadlock is caused by nested locking - one task holding a
> reader lock, another
> task calling down_write() and next the first task grabbing the reader
> lock recursively?
> I prefer one of the following two solutions above the patch that has
> been posted since
> I expect that both alternatives will result in easier to maintain UFS
> code:
> - Fix the down_read() implementation. Making down_read() wait in case
> of nested locking
> seems wrong to me.
> - Modify the UFS driver such that it does not lock
> hba->clk_scaling_lock recursively.

My current change is the 2nd solution - drop the hba->clk_scaling_lock
before calls ufshcd_wb_toggle() to avoid recursive lock.

Thanks,

Can Guo.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-30 05:59    [W:0.097 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site