[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c3297d67-ac6f-e8b5-9167-648302319812@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:21:44 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: "Bao D. Nguyen" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>,
quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com, quic_cang@...cinc.com, mani@...nel.org,
Powen.Kao@...iatek.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, avri.altman@....com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] ufs: core: Add error handling for MCQ mode
On 4/17/23 14:05, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
> + /* MCQ mode */
> + if (is_mcq_enabled(hba))
> + return ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1UL << lrbp->task_tag);
The above code will trigger an overflow if lrbp->task_tag >= 8 *
sizeof(unsigned long). That's not acceptable.
> static irqreturn_t ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> {
> + struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
> + u32 hwq_num, utag;
> + int tag;
> +
> /* Resetting interrupt aggregation counters first and reading the
> * DOOR_BELL afterward allows us to handle all the completed requests.
> * In order to prevent other interrupts starvation the DB is read once
> @@ -5580,7 +5590,22 @@ static irqreturn_t ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> * Ignore the ufshcd_poll() return value and return IRQ_HANDLED since we
> * do not want polling to trigger spurious interrupt complaints.
> */
> - ufshcd_poll(hba->host, UFSHCD_POLL_FROM_INTERRUPT_CONTEXT);
> + if (!is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> + ufshcd_poll(hba->host, UFSHCD_POLL_FROM_INTERRUPT_CONTEXT);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* MCQ mode */
> + for (tag = 0; tag < hba->nutrs; tag++) {
> + lrbp = &hba->lrb[tag];
> + if (lrbp->cmd) {
> + utag = blk_mq_unique_tag(scsi_cmd_to_rq(lrbp->cmd));
> + hwq_num = blk_mq_unique_tag_to_hwq(utag);
> + ufshcd_poll(hba->host, hwq_num);
> + }
> + }
Is my understanding correct that ufshcd_transfer_req_compl() is only
called from single doorbell code paths and hence that the above change
is not necessary?
> + if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> + struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
> + int tag;
> +
> + for (tag = 0; tag < hba->nutrs; tag++) {
> + lrbp = &hba->lrb[tag];
> + if (lrbp->cmd) {
> + ret = ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag);
> + dev_err(hba->dev, "Aborting tag %d / CDB %#02x %s\n", tag,
> + hba->lrb[tag].cmd ? hba->lrb[tag].cmd->cmnd[0] : -1,
> + ret ? "failed" : "succeeded");
> + }
> + if (ret) {
> + needs_reset = true;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* Clear pending transfer requests */
> + for_each_set_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs, hba->nutrs) {
> + ret = ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag);
> + dev_err(hba->dev, "Aborting tag %d / CDB %#02x %s\n", tag,
> + hba->lrb[tag].cmd ? hba->lrb[tag].cmd->cmnd[0] : -1,
> + ret ? "failed" : "succeeded");
> + if (ret) {
> + needs_reset = true;
> + goto out;
> + }
> }
> }
Please introduce helper functions for the MCQ and SDB code paths such
that the nesting level of the above code is reduced.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists