[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SN6PR04MB46409838AE9D4BD63797E26DFC600@SN6PR04MB4640.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:10:29 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
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>,
"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 Bart and Avri,
>
> On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 18:39 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 2020-07-06 06:21, Stanley Chu 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().
> >
> > How is it possible that no interrupt notification is raised for a completed
> > request? Is this the result of a hardware shortcoming or rather the result
> > of how the UFS driver works? In the latter case, is this patch perhaps a
> > workaround? If so, has it been considered to fix the root cause instead of
> > implementing a workaround?
>
> Actually this fail is triggered by "error injection" to produce a
> command timeout event for checking if anything can be improved or fixed.
>
> I agree that "no interrupt notification" may be something wrong in
> hardware and the root cause shall be fixed in the highest priority.
> However from this injection, we found ufshcd_abort() indeed has a defect
> flow for a corner case, so we are looking for the solution to fix the
> "hole".
>
> What would you think if Linux driver shall consider this case? If this
> is not necessary, I would drop this patch : )
Artificially injecting errors is a very common validation mechanism,
Provided that you are not breaking anything of the upper-layers,
Which I don't think you are doing.
Can you refer please to my last comment?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Stanley Chu
>
> >
> > In section 7.2.3 of the UFS specification I found the following about how
> > to process request completions: "Software determines if new TRs have
> > completed since step #2, by repeating one of the two methods described in
> > step #2. If new TRs have completed, software repeats the sequence from
> step
> > #3." Is such a loop perhaps missing from the Linux UFS driver?
Could not find that citation.
What version of the spec are you using?
Thanks,
Avri
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists