Date:   Mon, 03 Aug 2020 20:04:39 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        avri.altman@....com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        bvanassche@....org, beanhuo@...ron.com, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kuohong.wang@...iatek.com, peter.wang@...iatek.com,
        chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com, andy.teng@...iatek.com,
        chaotian.jing@...iatek.com, cc.chou@...iatek.com,
        jiajie.hao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown

Slightly updated my comments

On 2020-08-03 19:50, Can Guo wrote:
> Hi Stanley,
> 
> On 2020-08-03 18:04, Stanley Chu wrote:
>> Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
>> UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
>> scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
>> accesses.
>> 
>> To fix this kind of issues, in ufshcd_shutdown(),
>> 
>> 1. Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
>>    ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally" to let runtime PM framework
>>    manage and prevent concurrent runtime operations by incoming I/O
>>    requests.
>> 
>> 2. Specifically quiesce all SCSI devices to block all I/O requests
>>    after device is resumed.
>> 
>> Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended
>> 
>> Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
>>            ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
>> 
>> Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
>>            e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)
>> 
>> This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
>> concurrently and some unexpected racing behavior may happen.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
>> ---
>> Changes:
>>   - Since v6:
>> 	- Do quiesce to all SCSI devices.
>>   - Since v4:
>> 	- Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
>> ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally".
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> index 307622284239..7cb220b3fde0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -8640,6 +8640,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
>>  int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  {
>>  	int ret = 0;
>> +	struct scsi_target *starget;
>> 
>>  	if (!hba->is_powered)
>>  		goto out;
>> @@ -8647,11 +8648,27 @@ int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
>>  		goto out;
>> 
>> -	if (pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev)) {
>> -		ret = ufshcd_runtime_resume(hba);
>> -		if (ret)
>> -			goto out;
>> -	}
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Let runtime PM framework manage and prevent concurrent runtime
>> +	 * operations with shutdown flow.
>> +	 */
>> +	pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Quiesce all SCSI devices to prevent any non-PM requests sending
>> +	 * from block layer during and after shutdown.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Here we can not use blk_cleanup_queue() since PM requests
>> +	 * (with BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT flag) are still required to be sent
>> +	 * through block layer. Therefore SCSI command queued after the
>> +	 * scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will block until
>> +	 * blk_cleanup_queue() is called.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Besides, scsi_target_"un"quiesce (e.g., scsi_target_resume) can
>> +	 * be ignored since shutdown is one-way flow.
>> +	 */
>> +	list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
>> +		scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
>> 
> 
> Sorry for misleading you to scsi_target_quiesce(), maybe below is 
> better.
> 
>     shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host)
>         scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
> 
> We may need to discuss more about this quiesce part since I missed 
> something.
> 
> After we quiesce the scsi devices, only PM requests are allowed, but it
> is still not safe: [1] PM requests can still pass through, [2] there 
> can
> be tasks/reqs present in doorbells before the devices are quiesced. So,
> these tasks/reqs in [1] and [2] can still be flying in parallel while
> ufshcd_suspend is running.
> 
> How about only quiescing the UFS device well known scsi device but 
> using
> freeze_queue to the other scsi devices? blk_mq_freeze_queue can 
> eliminate
> the risks mentioned in [1] and [2].
> 
>      shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
>          if (sdev == hba->sdev_ufs_device)
>               scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
>          else
>               blk_mq_freeze_queue(sdev->request_queue);
>      }
> 
> IF blk_mq_freeze_queue is not allowed to be used by LLD (I think we can
> use it as I recalled Bart used to use it in one of his changes to UFS 
> scaling),
> we can use scsi_remove_device instead, it changes scsi device's state 
> to
> SDEV_DEL and calls blk_cleanup_queue.
> 
> We can also make changes like below. [1] is to make sure no more PM 
> requests
> sent to scsi devices, [2] is make sure doorbells are cleared before 
> invoke
> ufshcd_suspend.
> 
>     shost_for_each_device(sdev, hba->host) {
>         scsi_autopm_get_device(sdev); [1]
>         scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
>     }
> 
>     ufshcd_wait_for_doorbell_clr(hba, U64_MAX); [2]
> 
> Please let me know which one you prefer or if you have better idea, 
> thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Can Guo.
> 
>>  	ret = ufshcd_suspend(hba, UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM);
>>  out:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists