Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:54:29 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] xhci: Keep interrupt disabled in initialization until host is running. | From | Prashanth K <> |
| |
On 10-10-23 04:48 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:34:44PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote: >> >> >> On 09-10-23 06:22 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 04:09:26PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote: >>>> From: Hongyu Xie <xy521521@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> [ Upstream commit a808925075fb750804a60ff0710614466c396db4 ] >>>> >>>> irq is disabled in xhci_quiesce(called by xhci_halt, with bit:2 cleared >>>> in USBCMD register), but xhci_run(called by usb_add_hcd) re-enable it. >>>> It's possible that you will receive thousands of interrupt requests >>>> after initialization for 2.0 roothub. And you will get a lot of >>>> warning like, "xHCI dying, ignoring interrupt. Shouldn't IRQs be >>>> disabled?". This amount of interrupt requests will cause the entire >>>> system to freeze. >>>> This problem was first found on a device with ASM2142 host controller >>>> on it. >>>> >>>> [tidy up old code while moving it, reword header -Mathias] >>>> >>>> Cc: stable@kernel.org >>>> Signed-off-by: Hongyu Xie <xiehongyu1@kylinos.cn> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220623111945.1557702-2-mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com >>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.15 >>>> Signed-off-by: Prashanth K <quic_prashk@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>> >>> Any specific reason you missed adding the extra blank line in this >>> version of the backport that the original added? That is going to cause >>> problems in the future if other patches are added on top of this that >>> would be expecting it because it is that way in Linus's tree. >>> >> >> Thanks for pointing out, i removed it while resolving some merge conflicts. >> Will add it back in next version. >> >>> And why is this only relevant for 5.15.y? >> >> I'm not really sure why this was only ported from 5.19 onwards and not >> present in older kernels (could be because of dependencies/conflicts). >> >> But anyways im backporting it to 5.15 since an irq storm was seen on a qcom >> SOC working on 5.15, and this patch is helping solve it. >> >> Should I change the CC to just stable kernel (without mentioning kernel >> version) ? >> something like this -- Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > No, let us know what kernel version this is to be applied to so we know, > if you only think this is relevant for 5.15.y as you have tested it > there, that's fine, I just wanted to be sure.
We tested it on 5.15 for over 20 hours and didn't see any issue. Will send a new patch after adding the newline.
Thanks, Prashanth K
| |