[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120523091617.GZ8730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:16:17 +0300
From: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To: "Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@...com>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Arnd Bergman <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@...aro.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Fix race conditions between clk_set_parent() and
clk_enable()
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:06:45PM +0200, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Peter De Schrijver
> <pdeschrijver@...dia.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 08:20:44PM +0200, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >> On 05/11/2012 09:59 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >> > Without this patch, the following race conditions are possible.
> >> >
> >> > Race condition 1:
> >> > * clk-A has two parents - clk-X and clk-Y.
> >> > * All three are disabled and clk-X is current parent.
> >> > * Thread A: clk_set_parent(clk-A, clk-Y).
> >> > * Thread A:<snip execution flow>
> >> > * Thread A: Grabs enable lock.
> >> > * Thread A: Sees enable count of clk-A is 0, so doesn't enable clk-Y.
> >> > * Thread A: Releases enable lock.
> >> > * Thread B: Calls clk_enable(clk-A), which in turn enables clk-X.
> >> > * Thread A: Switches clk-A's parent to clk-Y in hardware.
> >> >
> >> > clk-A is now enabled in software, but not clocking in hardware.
> >> >
> >> > Race condition 2:
> >> > * clk-A has two parents - clk-X and clk-Y.
> >> > * All three are disabled and clk-X is current parent.
> >> > * Thread A: clk_set_parent(clk-A, clk-Y).
> >> > * Thread A:<snip execution flow>
> >> > * Thread A: Switches parent in hardware to clk-Y.
> >> > * Thread A: Grabs enable lock.
> >> > * Thread A: Sees enable count of clk-A is 0, so doesn't disable clk-X.
> >> > * Thread A: Releases enable lock.
> >> > * Thread B: Calls clk_enable(clk-A)
> >> > * Thread B: Software state still says parent is clk-X.
> >> > * Thread B: So, enables clk-X and then itself.
> >> > * Thread A: Updates parent in software state to clk-Y.
> >> >
> >
> > This looks correct to me. Is there any usecase where enabling/disabling a
> > clock would require sleeping but changing the parent would not?
> >
>
> clk_enable & clk_disable must never sleep. clk_prepare and
> clk_unprepare may sleep.
>
In that case the clock is actually enabled in clk_prepare and disabled in
clk_unprepare I guess (and clk_enable/clk_disable are dummy functions)?
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think there are clocks which can be
enabled/disabled using non blocking operations, but where a parent change
would require a blocking operation.
Cheers,
Peter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists