linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
 <DM6PR04MB6575D6AECFEC5C3ED1016EFBFC4B2@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 05:39:51 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "Martin K . Petersen"
	<martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock

> 
> On 10/27/24 1:25 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > Introduce a new clock gating lock to seriliaze access to the clock
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^
>                                         serialize
Done.

> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index 099373a25017..b7c7a7dd327f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -1817,13 +1817,13 @@ static void ufshcd_ungate_work(struct
> > work_struct *work)
> >
> >       cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hba->clk_gating.gate_work);
> >
> > -     spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >       if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON) {
> > -             spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >       ufshcd_hba_vreg_set_hpm(hba);
> >       ufshcd_setup_clocks(hba, true);
> 
> This would be a great opportunity to replace the spinlock calls with
> scoped_guard(), isn't it?
Done.

> 
> > @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct
> *work)
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >       int ret;
> >
> > -     spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >       /*
> >        * In case you are here to cancel this work the gating state
> >        * would be marked as REQ_CLKS_ON. In this case save time by @@
> > -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct
> *work)
> >       if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) || hba->ufshcd_state !=
> UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL)
> >               goto rel_lock;
> >
> > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> 
> Same comment here: please consider using scoped_guard().
Done.

> 
> >       /* put the link into hibern8 mode before turning off clocks */
> >       if (ufshcd_can_hibern8_during_gating(hba)) { @@ -1977,14
> > +1977,14 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >        * prevent from doing cancel work multiple times when there are
> >        * new requests arriving before the current cancel work is done.
> >        */
> > -     spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >       if (hba->clk_gating.state == REQ_CLKS_OFF) {
> >               hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_OFF;
> >               trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
> >                                       hba->clk_gating.state);
> >       }
> >   rel_lock:
> > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >   out:
> >       return;
> >   }
> 
> ufshcd_gate_work() can be simplified by using guard() and scoped_guard().
Done.

> 
> > @@ -2015,9 +2015,9 @@ void ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> >   {
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >
> > -     spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> >       __ufshcd_release(hba);
> > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> 
> For this function and also for later changes, please use guard().
Done.

> 
> > diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h index
> > 9ea2a7411bb5..52c822fe2944 100644
> > --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > @@ -413,6 +413,7 @@ enum clk_gating_state {
> >    * @active_reqs: number of requests that are pending and should be
> waited for
> >    * completion before gating clocks.
> >    * @clk_gating_workq: workqueue for clock gating work.
> > + * @lock: serielize access to the clk_gating members
>               ^^^^^^^^^
>               serialize
> 
> I don't think that the added comment is correct - 'lock' is used to serialize
> access to some struct ufs_clk_gating members but not for serializing access
> to all members. Accesses to e.g. gate_work, ungate_work and
> clk_gating_workq are not serialized. Please reorder the struct ufs_clk_gating
> members as follows:
> - Members that are not serialized first.
> - Next, 'lock'.
> - Finally, the members serialized by 'lock'.
> 
> I think it is common in Linux kernel code that structure members are
> organized this way.
Done.

Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.