[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e828fd80f3fe9d0f64a5629eebd5a345@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:21:38 +0800
From: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
Cc: asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
hongwus@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
sh425.lee@...sung.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/8] scsi: ufs-qcom: Fix schedule while atomic error in
ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs
Hi Avri,
On 2020-07-27 21:05, Avri Altman wrote:
>> Dumping testbus registers needs to sleep a bit intermittently as there
>> are
>> too many of them. Skip them for those contexts where sleep is not
>> allowed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 15 +++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 7da27ee..7831b2b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -1651,13 +1651,16 @@ static void ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs(struct
>> ufs_hba *hba)
>> ufshcd_dump_regs(hba, REG_UFS_SYS1CLK_1US, 16 * 4,
>> "HCI Vendor Specific Registers ");
>>
>> - /* sleep a bit intermittently as we are dumping too much data
>> */
>> ufs_qcom_print_hw_debug_reg_all(hba, NULL,
>> ufs_qcom_dump_regs_wrapper);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> - ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> - ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> +
>> + if (in_task()) {
>> + /* sleep a bit intermittently as we are dumping too
>> much data */
>> + usleep_range(1000, 1100);
>> + ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
>> + usleep_range(1000, 1100);
>> + ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
>> + usleep_range(1000, 1100);
>> + }
>> }
> How about moving the intermittent sleep out of the check if preemption
> is disabled?
> And maybe then you need to switch back to uedlay?
I will just remove all the testbus prints in next version to save us
time here.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists