linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: use udelay instead of mdelay

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 May 2016 08:53:18 +0000
From:	"Baranowska, BeataX" <beatax.baranowska@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Dong, Chuanxiao" <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
	"Jarosz, SebastianX" <sebastianx.jarosz@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: use udelay instead of mdelay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 10:01 AM
> To: Baranowska, BeataX <beatax.baranowska@...el.com>
> Cc: Hunter, Adrian <adrian.hunter@...el.com>; Ulf Hansson
> <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>; linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Dong, Chuanxiao <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>;
> Jarosz, SebastianX <sebastianx.jarosz@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: use udelay instead of mdelay
> 
> On Monday, May 30, 2016 7:55:55 AM CEST Baranowska, BeataX wrote:
> > From: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>
> >
> > This patch will use udelay instead of mdelay when waiting for SDHCI
> > hardware to be stable. udelay can help to reduce the waiting time when
> > is in critical region which is protected by spinlock.
> >
> > With this patch, __sdhci_set_ios only take a few microseconds to be
> > done.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c index
> > e010ea4eb6f5..56d2c7567d97 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ void sdhci_reset(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 mask)
> >                         sdhci_runtime_pm_bus_off(host);
> >         }
> >
> > -       /* Wait max 100 ms */
> > -       timeout = 100;
> > +       /* Wait max 10000 ms */
> > +       timeout = 10000;
> >
> >         /* hw clears the bit when it's done */
> >         while (sdhci_readb(host, SDHCI_SOFTWARE_RESET) & mask) { @@
> > -185,7 +185,7 @@ void sdhci_reset(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 mask)
> >                         return;
> >                 }
> >                 timeout--;
> > -               mdelay(1);
> > +               udelay(10);
> >         }
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sdhci_reset);
> 
> This can significantly increase the timeout length. I think you should instead
> use time_before() to see how many jiffies have passed since the start.
> 
> However, the real question is why the reset function gets called under a
> spinlock in the first place. Can you try to rearrange the code so it doesn't
> need the lock at all and you can just use msleep() instead?
> 
> 	Arnd

Thank you for your quick reply.
Could you please clarify what do you mean is called under a spinlock? Any is not used here?

Beata Baranowska