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  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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:25:15 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
        Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
        Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
        Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
        Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V12 0/5] mmc: Add Command Queue support

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/17 16:32, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> My patch series switches the stack around to make it possible
>> to do this. But it doesn't go the whole way to complete the requests
>> from interrupt context.
>>
>> Since we have to send commands for retune etc request finalization
>> cannot easily be done from interrupt context.
>
> Re-tuning and background operations are rare and slow, so there is no reason
> to try to start them from interrupt context.

OK I will try to get them out of the way and see what happens,
hehe :)

What I mean is that we were checking - on every command -
if BKOPS or retune needs to happen. And then doing it. Thus
all was done in process context.

>> But I am thinking about testing to hack it
>> using some ugly approaches ... like assuming we don't need any
>> retune etc and just say all is fine and optimistically complete the
>> request directly in the interrupt handler if all was OK and wait
>> for errors to happen before retuning.
>
> It already works that way.  Re-tuning happens before you start a request.
> We prevent re-tuning in between dependent requests, like between starting a
> transfer and CMD13 polling for completion.

Ah that is what these if()s do ... right. I'll see if I can get around
this then.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Powered by blists - more mailing lists