Message-ID: <1594517160.10600.33.camel@mtkswgap22>
Date:   Sun, 12 Jul 2020 09:26:00 +0800
From:   Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kuohong.wang@...iatek.com" <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
        "peter.wang@...iatek.com" <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
        "chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com" <chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com>,
        "andy.teng@...iatek.com" <andy.teng@...iatek.com>,
        "chaotian.jing@...iatek.com" <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>,
        "cc.chou@...iatek.com" <cc.chou@...iatek.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] scsi: ufs: Cleanup completed request without
 interrupt notification

Hi Avri,

On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 08:31 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > 
> > If somehow no interrupt notification is raised for a completed request
> > and its doorbell bit is cleared by host, UFS driver needs to cleanup
> > its outstanding bit in ufshcd_abort().
> Theoretically, this case is already accounted for - 
> See line 6407: a proper error is issued and eventually outstanding req is cleared.
> 
> Can you go over the scenario you are attending line by line,
> And explain why ufshcd_abort does not account for it?

Sure.

If a request using tag N is completed by UFS device without interrupt
notification till timeout happens, ufshcd_abort() will be invoked.

Since request completion flow is not executed, current status may be

- Tag N in hba->outstanding_reqs is set
- Tag N in doorbell register is not set

In this case, ufshcd_abort() flow would be

- This log is printed: "ufshcd_abort: cmd was completed, but without a
notifying intr, tag = N"
- This log is printed: "ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag N"
- If hba->req_abort_skip is zero, QUERY_TASK command is sent
- Device responds "UPIU_TASK_MANAGEMENT_FUNC_COMPL"
- This log is printed: "ufshcd_abort: cmd at tag N not pending in the
device."
- Doorbell tells that tag N is not set, so the driver goes to label
"out" with this log printed: "ufshcd_abort: cmd at tag %d successfully
cleared from DB."
- In label "out" section, no cleanup will be made, and then ufshcd_abort
exits
- This request will be re-queued to request queue by SCSI timeout
handler

Now, Inconsistent state shows-up: A request is "re-queued" but its
corresponding resource in UFS layer is not cleared, below flow will
trigger bad things,

- A new request with tag M is finished
- Interrupt is raised and ufshcd_transfer_req_compl() found both tag N
and M can process the completion flow
- The post-processing flow for tag N will be executed while its request
is still alive

I am sorry that below messages are only for old kernel in non-blk-mq
case. However above scenario will also trigger bad thing in blk-mq case.

> 
> > 
> > Otherwise, system may crash by below abnormal flow:
> > 
> > After this request is requeued by SCSI layer with its
> > outstanding bit set, the next completed request will trigger
> > ufshcd_transfer_req_compl() to handle all "completed outstanding
> > bits". In this time, the "abnormal outstanding bit" will be detected
> > and the "requeued request" will be chosen to execute request
> > post-processing flow. This is wrong and blk_finish_request() will
> > BUG_ON because this request is still "alive".
> > 
> > It is worth mentioning that before ufshcd_abort() cleans the timed-out
> > request, driver need to check again if this request is really not
> > handled by __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl() yet because it may be
> > possible that the interrupt comes very lately before the cleaning.
> What do you mean? Why checking the outstanding reqs isn't enough?
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 9 +++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > index 8603b07045a6..f23fb14df9f6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -6462,7 +6462,7 @@ static int ufshcd_abort(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >                         /* command completed already */
> >                         dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: cmd at tag %d successfully cleared from
> > DB.\n",
> >                                 __func__, tag);
> > -                       goto out;
> > +                       goto cleanup;
> But you've arrived here only if (!(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) - 
> See line 6400. 
> 
> >                 } else {
> >                         dev_err(hba->dev,
> >                                 "%s: no response from device. tag = %d, err %d\n",
> > @@ -6496,9 +6496,14 @@ static int ufshcd_abort(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> > +cleanup:
> > +       spin_lock_irqsave(host->host_lock, flags);
> > +       if (!test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs)) {
> > +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(host->host_lock, flags);
> > +               goto out;
> > +       }
> >         scsi_dma_unmap(cmd);
> > 
> > -       spin_lock_irqsave(host->host_lock, flags);
> >         ufshcd_outstanding_req_clear(hba, tag);
> >         hba->lrb[tag].cmd = NULL;
> >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(host->host_lock, flags);
> > --
> > 2.18.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists