linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: imx: avoid rescheduling when waiting for bus not busy

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zlnidi62gEWwdQ3U@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:45:10 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stefan Eichenberger <eichest@...il.com>
Cc: o.rempel@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, andi.shyti@...nel.org,
	shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
	jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, nuno.sa@...log.com,
	u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, marcelo.schmitt@...log.com,
	gnstark@...utedevices.com, francesco.dolcini@...adex.com,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@...adex.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: imx: avoid rescheduling when waiting for bus
 not busy

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Stefan Eichenberger wrote:
> From: Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@...adex.com>
> 
> On our i.MX8M Mini based module we have an ADS1015 I2C ADC connected to
> the I2C bus. The ADS1015 I2C ADC will timeout after 25ms when the I2C
> bus is idle. The imx i2c driver will call schedule when waiting for the
> bus to become idle after switching to master mode. When the i2c
> controller switches to master mode it pulls SCL and SDA low, if the
> ADS1015 I2C ADC sees this for more than 25 ms without seeing SCL
> clocking, it will timeout and ignore all signals until the next start
> condition occurs (SCL and SDA low). This can occur when the system load
> is high and schedule returns after more than 25 ms.
> 
> This rfc tries to solve the problem by using a udelay for the first 10
> ms before calling schedule. This reduces the chance that we will
> reschedule. However, it is still theoretically possible for the problem
> to occur. To properly solve the problem, we would also need to disable
> interrupts during the transfer.
> 
> After some internal discussion, we see three possible solutions:
> 1. Use udelay as shown in this rfc and also disable the interrupts
>    during the transfer. This would solve the problem but disable the
>    interrupts. Also, we would have to re-enable the interrupts if the
>    timeout is longer than 1ms (TBD).
> 2. We use a retry mechanism in the ti-ads1015 driver. When we see a
>    timeout, we try again.
> 3. We use the suggested solution and accept that there is an edge case
>    where the timeout can happen.
> 
> There may be a better way to do this, which is why this is an RFC.

..

> +			/*
> +			 * Avoid rescheduling in the first 10 ms to avoid
> +			 * timeouts for SMBus like devices
> +			 */
> +			if (time_before(jiffies, orig_jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(10)))
> +				udelay(10);
> +			else
> +				schedule();

Isn't there cond_resched() or so for such things?
More info here: 494e46d08d35 ("airo: Replace in_atomic() usage.")

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko