[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181031130651.l4toezvyg4etevnh@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:06:51 +0100
From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@...utronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: anirudh@...inx.com, John.Linn@...inx.com, michal.simek@...inx.com,
radhey.shyam.pandey@...inx.com, andrew@...n.ch,
yuehaibing@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: axienet: recheck condition after timeout in
mdio_wait()
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:25:11AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:31:38 +0100
>
> > The function could report a false positive if it gets preempted between reading
> > the XAE_MDIO_MCR_OFFSET register and checking for the timeout. In such a case,
> > the condition has to be rechecked to avoid false positives.
> >
> > Therefore, check for expected condition even after the timeout occurred.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> ...
> > if (time_before_eq(end, jiffies)) {
> > - WARN_ON(1);
> > - return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + val = axienet_ior(lp, XAE_MDIO_MCR_OFFSET);
> > + break;
> > }
> > +
> > udelay(1);
> > }
> > - return 0;
> > + if (val & XAE_MDIO_MCR_READY_MASK)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(1);
> > + return -ETIMEDOUT;
>
> You are not fundamentally changing the situation at all.
>
> The condtion could change right after your last read of
> XAR_MDIO_MCR_OFFSET, which is the same thing that happens before your
> modifications to this code.
That's true. The problem is different: If the current task gets
preempted by a higher priority task between checking the condition and
the timeout code, then a timeout might be falsely detected. Consider the
following events:
loop:
check mdio condition
------------------------
task with real time priority may run for a long time
------------------------
check for timeout
wait
That's why I've added the recheck of the condition in the timeout case.
>
> It sounds more like the timeout is slightly too short, and that's the
> real problem that causes whatever behavior you think you are fixing
> here.
The timeout value is not the problem here.
Thanks,
Kurt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists