| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:20:22 +0800
From: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] scsi: ufs: handle LINERESET with correct tm_cmd
On 2021-01-07 15:03, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2021-01-07 14:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 01/07, Can Guo wrote:
>>> On 2021-01-07 05:41, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> > From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...gle.com>
>>> >
>>> > This fixes a warning caused by wrong reserve tag usage in
>>> > __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd.
>>> >
>>> > WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 7 at block/blk-core.c:630 blk_get_request+0x68/0x70
>>> > WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 157 at block/blk-mq-tag.c:82
>>> > blk_mq_get_tag+0x438/0x46c
>>> >
>>> > And, in ufshcd_err_handler(), we can avoid to send tm_cmd before
>>> > aborting
>>> > outstanding commands by waiting a bit for IO completion like this.
>>> >
>>> > __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd: task management cmd 0x80 timed-out
>>> >
>>>
>>> Would you mind add a Fixes tag?
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
>>> > ---
>>> > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> > index 1678cec08b51..47fc8da3cbf9 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> > @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@
>>> > /* Query request timeout */
>>> > #define QUERY_REQ_TIMEOUT 1500 /* 1.5 seconds */
>>> >
>>> > +/* LINERESET TIME OUT */
>>> > +#define LINERESET_IO_TIMEOUT_MS (30000) /* 30 sec */
>>> > +
>>> > /* Task management command timeout */
>>> > #define TM_CMD_TIMEOUT 100 /* msecs */
>>> >
>>> > @@ -5899,6 +5902,8 @@ static void ufshcd_err_handler(struct work_struct
>>> > *work)
>>> > * check if power mode restore is needed.
>>> > */
>>> > if (hba->saved_uic_err & UFSHCD_UIC_PA_GENERIC_ERROR) {
>>> > + ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>>> > +
>>> > hba->saved_uic_err &= ~UFSHCD_UIC_PA_GENERIC_ERROR;
>>> > if (!hba->saved_uic_err)
>>> > hba->saved_err &= ~UIC_ERROR;
>>> > @@ -5906,6 +5911,20 @@ static void ufshcd_err_handler(struct work_struct
>>> > *work)
>>> > if (ufshcd_is_pwr_mode_restore_needed(hba))
>>> > needs_restore = true;
>>> > spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>> > + /* Wait for IO completion to avoid aborting IOs */
>>> > + while (hba->outstanding_reqs) {
>>> > + ufshcd_complete_requests(hba);
>>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>> > + schedule();
>>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>> > + if (ktime_to_ms(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start)) >
>>> > + LINERESET_IO_TIMEOUT_MS) {
>>> > + dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: timeout, outstanding=0x%lx\n",
>>> > + __func__, hba->outstanding_reqs);
>>> > + break;
>>> > + }
>>> > + }
>>> > +
>>> > if (!hba->saved_err && !needs_restore)
>>> > goto skip_err_handling;
>>> > }
>>> > @@ -6302,9 +6321,13 @@ static irqreturn_t ufshcd_intr(int irq, void
>>> > *__hba)
>>> > intr_status = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > - if (enabled_intr_status && retval == IRQ_NONE) {
>>> > - dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: Unhandled interrupt 0x%08x\n",
>>> > - __func__, intr_status);
>>> > + if (enabled_intr_status && retval == IRQ_NONE &&
>>> > + !ufshcd_eh_in_progress(hba)) {
>>> > + dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: Unhandled interrupt 0x%08x (0x%08x,
>>> > 0x%08x)\n",
>>> > + __func__,
>>> > + intr_status,
>>> > + hba->ufs_stats.last_intr_status,
>>> > + enabled_intr_status);
>>> > ufshcd_dump_regs(hba, 0, UFSHCI_REG_SPACE_SIZE, "host_regs: ");
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @@ -6348,7 +6371,11 @@ static int __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(struct ufs_hba
>>> > *hba,
>>> > * Even though we use wait_event() which sleeps indefinitely,
>>> > * the maximum wait time is bounded by %TM_CMD_TIMEOUT.
>>> > */
>>> > - req = blk_get_request(q, REQ_OP_DRV_OUT, BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED);
>>> > + req = blk_get_request(q, REQ_OP_DRV_OUT, BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED |
>>> > + BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT);
>>>
>>> Sorry that I didn't pay much attention to this part of code before.
>>> May I know why must we use the BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED flag?
>>
>> What I understood is the reserved tag is used when aborting
>> outstanding
>> IOs when all the 32 tags were used.
>>
>
> No, the tm requests and I/O requests are on two different tag sets:
> tm requests come from hba->tmf_tag_set, while I/O requests come from
> hba->shost->tag_set. Meaning they don't share tags with each other.
Add they are issued on two different HW queues - one for tm reqs,
one for I/O reqs, which is why two different tag sets are created.
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Can Guo.
>>>
>>> > + if (IS_ERR(req))
>>> > + return PTR_ERR(req);
>>> > +
>>> > req->end_io_data = &wait;
>>> > free_slot = req->tag;
>>> > WARN_ON_ONCE(free_slot < 0 || free_slot >= hba->nutmrs);
>>> > @@ -9355,6 +9382,7 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void
>>> > __iomem *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
>>> >
>>> > hba->tmf_tag_set = (struct blk_mq_tag_set) {
>>> > .nr_hw_queues = 1,
>>> > + .reserved_tags = 1,
>>>
>>> If we give reserved_tags as 1 and always ask for a tm requst with
>>> BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED flag set, then the tag shall only be allocated
>>> from the reserved sbitmap_queue, whose depth is set to 1 here.
>>> UFS supports tm queue depth as 8, but here is allowing only one tm
>>> req at a time. Why? Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
>>
>> I couldn't find tm can be issued in parallel, so thought it was issued
>> one at a time. If we set 8, then we can use 24 for IOs, IIUC.
>>
>> Please correct me as well. I'm still trying to understand the flow.
>>
>
> UFS allows a queue depth as 8, which means it support sending multiple
> tm requests at the same time. You can check commit 69a6c269c097d780a2 -
> before this change, we used to use below func to allocate tags for
> tm reqs, which can tell you the true story.
>
> So I am thinking why don't we just we remove the BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED
> flag?
> Removing it can also fix the warning I suppose. What do you think?
>
> -static bool ufshcd_get_tm_free_slot(struct ufs_hba *hba, int
> *free_slot)
> -{
> - int tag;
> - bool ret = false;
> -
> - if (!free_slot)
> - goto out;
> -
> - do {
> - tag = find_first_zero_bit(&hba->tm_slots_in_use,
> hba->nutmrs);
> - if (tag >= hba->nutmrs)
> - goto out;
> - } while (test_and_set_bit_lock(tag, &hba->tm_slots_in_use));
> -
> - *free_slot = tag;
> - ret = true;
> -out:
> - return ret;
> -}
>
> Thanks,
> Can Guo.
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Can Guo.
>>>
>>> > .queue_depth = hba->nutmrs,
>>> > .ops = &ufshcd_tmf_ops,
>>> > .flags = BLK_MQ_F_NO_SCHED,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists