| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <30eae958-fd66-96a2-52a2-661c0646a302@st.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:09:35 +0200
From: Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling
On 4/25/19 12:08 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com> wrote:
>>
>> hi Ulf
>>
>> On 4/23/19 3:39 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:10, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@...com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>>>
>>>> The busy status bit could occurred even if no busy response is
>>>> expected (example cmd11). On sdmmc variant, the busy_detect_flag
>>>> reflects inverted value of d0 state, it's sampled at the end of a
>>>> CMD response and a second time 2 clk cycles after the CMD response.
>>>> To avoid a fake busy, the busy status could be checked and polled
>>>> only if the command has RSP_BUSY flag.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate a better explanation of what this patch really changes.
>>>
>>> The above is giving some background to the behavior of sdmmc variant,
>>> but at this point that variant doesn't even have the
>>> ->variant->busy_detect flag set.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I will try to explain more and focus on common behavior.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>>> index 387ff14..4901b73 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>>> @@ -1220,12 +1220,13 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>> unsigned int status)
>>>> {
>>>> void __iomem *base = host->base;
>>>> - bool sbc;
>>>> + bool sbc, busy_resp;
>>>>
>>>> if (!cmd)
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> sbc = (cmd == host->mrq->sbc);
>>>> + busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * We need to be one of these interrupts to be considered worth
>>>> @@ -1239,8 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>> /*
>>>> * ST Micro variant: handle busy detection.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect) {
>>>> - bool busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
>>>> + if (busy_resp && host->variant->busy_detect) {
>>>>
>>>> /* We are busy with a command, return */
>>>> if (host->busy_status &&
>>>> @@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>> * that the special busy status bit is still set before
>>>> * proceeding.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (!host->busy_status && busy_resp &&
>>>> + if (!host->busy_status &&
>>>> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
>>>> (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>>>
>>> All the changes above makes perfect sense to me, but looks more like a
>>> cleanup of the code, rather than actually changing the behavior.
>>
>> yes, few changing (this just avoid to enter in
>> "if (host->variant->busy_detect)") at each time.
>> I could move this part in cleanup patch (before this patch)
>
> Sounds good to me!
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>> {
>>>> struct mmci_host *host = dev_id;
>>>> u32 status;
>>>> + bool busy_resp;
>>>> int ret = 0;
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock(&host->lock);
>>>> @@ -1550,9 +1551,15 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> - * Don't poll for busy completion in irq context.
>>>> + * Don't poll for:
>>>> + * -busy completion in irq context.
>>>> + * -no busy response expected.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect && host->busy_status)
>>>> + busy_resp = host->cmd ?
>>>> + !!(host->cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) : false;
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something.
>>>
>>> host->busy_status is being updated by mmci_cmd_irq() and only when
>>> MMC_RSP_BUSY is set for the command in flight. In other words,
>>> checking for MMC_RSP_BUSY here as well is redundant. No?
>>
>> In mmci_irq the "do while" loops until the status is totally cleared.
>>
>> Today (for variant with busy_detect option), the status busy_detect_flag
>> is excluded only while busy_status period (command with MMC_RSP_BUSY and
>> while busy line is low => "busy_status=1")
>>
>> On SDMMC variant I noticed that busy_detect_flag status could be enabled
>> even if the command is not MMC_RSP_BUSY, for example sdmmc variant stay
>> in loop while cmd11 voltage switch.
>
> Right, I see.
>
>>
>> So I wish extend host->variant->busy_detect_flag exclusion for all
>> commands which is not a MMC_RSP_BUSY. I suppose that other variants
>> could have the same behavior, and else there is no impact, normally.
>
> I am guessing this is because the variant->busy_dpsm_flag has been set
> in the datactrl register, which is needed for mmci_card_busy().
>
> That said, I am kind of wondering if we ever should need repeat the
> while loop if 'status' contains the bit for
> host->variant->busy_detect_flag. I mean we have already called
> mmci_cmd_irq() to handle it.
>
> So, couldn't we just always do:
>
> if (host->variant->busy_detect_flag)
> status &= ~host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
>
> No?
yes that make sense, I launched tests on sdmmc and it's ok.
I think, that we could take on this solution.
If it's ok for you, I resend a series with all modifications.
Regards
Ludo
>
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (host->variant->busy_detect &&
>>>> + (!busy_resp || host->busy_status))
>>>> status &= ~host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
>>>>
>>>> ret = 1;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Uffe
>>>
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists