[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b567a98b-8d4f-d0e4-145e-462a1edd5116@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:42:16 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after
timeout in busy_loop()
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It's possible for the polling loop in busy_loop() to get scheduled away
> for a long time.
>
> status = ipc_read_status(scu); // status = IPC_STATUS_BUSY
> <long time scheduled away>
> if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
>
> If this happens, then the status bit could change while the task is
> scheduled away and this function would never read the status again after
> timing out. Instead, the function will return -ETIMEDOUT when it's
> possible that scheduling didn't work out and the status bit was cleared.
> Bit polling code should always check the bit being polled one more time
> after the timeout in case this happens.
>
> Fix this by reading the status once more after the while loop breaks.
> The readl_poll_timeout() macro implements all of this, and it is
> shorter, so use that macro here to consolidate code and fix this.
>
> There were some concerns with using readl_poll_timeout() because it uses
> timekeeping, and timekeeping isn't running early on or during the late
> stages of system suspend or early stages of system resume, but an audit
> of the code concluded that this code isn't called during those times so
> it is safe to use the macro.
>
> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> Fixes: e7b7ab3847c9 ("platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Sleeping is fine when polling")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
--
i.
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> index 6851d10d6582..4c774ee8bb1b 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
>
> @@ -231,19 +232,15 @@ static inline u32 ipc_data_readl(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu, u32 offset)
> /* Wait till scu status is busy */
> static inline int busy_loop(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu)
> {
> - unsigned long end = jiffies + IPC_TIMEOUT;
> + u8 status;
> + int err;
>
> - do {
> - u32 status;
> + err = readx_poll_timeout(ipc_read_status, scu, status, !(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY),
> + 100, jiffies_to_usecs(IPC_TIMEOUT));
> + if (err)
> + return err;
>
> - status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> - if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
> - return (status & IPC_STATUS_ERR) ? -EIO : 0;
> -
> - usleep_range(50, 100);
> - } while (time_before(jiffies, end));
> -
> - return -ETIMEDOUT;
> + return (status & IPC_STATUS_ERR) ? -EIO : 0;
> }
>
> /* Wait till ipc ioc interrupt is received or timeout in 10 HZ */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists