Message-ID: <20190220123240.77d764ea@archlinux>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:32:40 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Robert Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...il.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iio: light: Add driver for ap3216c

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:35:51 -0500
Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> Thanks again for your clear and extensive feedback !
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that would break lots of devices if it happened, but
> > fair enough that explicit might be good.  One option would be
> > to document clearly in regmap the requirement that bulk read is ordered.
> >  
> 
> Yes, it would be interesting to hear the regmap people's opinion on ordering.
> In the mean time, we can make this explicit.
> Re-reading the thread, I can also see that Peter Meerwald-Stadler was first
> to spot this race condition.
> 
> > What we need to guarantee is:
> >
> > 1) If the sensor reads on an occasion where the threshold is passed, we do not miss the event
> >    The event is the threshold being passed, not the existence of the reading, or how many
> >    readings etc.
> >
> > 2) A data read will result in a value.  There is no guarantee that it will match with the
> >    event.  All manner of delays could result in new data having occurred before that read.
> >  
> 
> My feedback was based on two incorrect assumptions:
> a. the interrupt fires whenever new PS/ALS values become available (wrong)
> b. there are strict consistency guarantees between the THRESH event, and what
> userspace will read out (also wrong)
> 
> Taking that into account, I am 100% in agreement with your other comments.
> Thank you so much for the explanation!
> 
> There is one exception, though:
> 
> > > +static int ap3216c_write_event_config(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > +                                    const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
> > > +                                    enum iio_event_type type,
> > > +                                    enum iio_event_direction dir, int state)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct ap3216c_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > +
> > > +       switch (chan->type) {
> > > +       case IIO_LIGHT:
> > > +               data->als_thresh_en = state;
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > > +       case IIO_PROXIMITY:
> > > +               data->prox_thresh_en = state;
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > > +       default:
> > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > +       }
> > > +static irqreturn_t ap3216c_event_handler(int irq, void *p)
> > > +{
> > > + if ((status & AP3216C_INT_STATUS_PS_MASK) && data->prox_thresh_en)
> > > + iio_push_event(...);
> > > +
> > >
> > > I think this may not work as intended. One thread (userspace) writes
> > > a variable, another thread (threaded irq handler) checks it. but there
> > > is no explicit or implicit memory barrier. So when userspace activates
> > > thresholding, it may take a long time for the handler to 'see' it !  
> >
> > Yes.  But if userspace took a while to get around to writing this value,
> > it would also take longer...  It's not time critical exactly when you
> > enable the event.  One can create cases where someone might
> > care, but they are pretty obscure.
> >  
> 
> Are you sure? I suspect that it's perfectly possible for the threaded irq
> handler not to 'see' the store to (als|prox)_thresh_en for a _very_ long time.

That is a serious - "in theory" circumstance.  The moment we hit any path at
all that results in a memory barrier it will see it.  Here its not critical
so we can wait.  In this case this is triggered by a userspace write.

Looks to me like that happens (I haven't checked that thoroughly) via
kernfs_fops_write which takes a mutex - so we have a barrier.

There are of course cases where multiple concurrent in kernel actions need
to be protected and need a memory barrier, but this doesn't look like one
of those to me.

> 
> AFAIK only a memory barrier will guarantee that the handler 'sees' the store
> right away. A lock will do - it issues an implicit memory barrier.
> 
> Most drivers use a lock to guarantee visibility. There are a few drivers that
> resort to explicit barriers to make a flag visible from one thread to another.

That's misleading. Most drivers use a lock to protect state against concurrent
inconsistent writes.  They don't take a lock because of it's memory barrier.
I have no objection to seeing one here as it's easier to know it is correct,
and the scope of lock can be nice and apparent.

> 
> E.g. search for mb() or wmb() in:
> drivers/input/keyboard/matrix_keypad.c
> drivers/input/misc/cm109.c
> drivers/input/misc/yealink.c

Powered by blists - more mailing lists