Currently one mrq->data maybe execute dma_map_sg() twice
when mmc subsystem prepare over one new request, and the
following log show up:
sdhci[sdhci_pre_dma_transfer] invalid cookie: 24, next-cookie 25
In this condition, mrq->date map a dma-memory(1) in sdhci_pre_req
for the first time, and map another dma-memory(2) in sdhci_prepare_data
for the second time. But driver only unmap the dma-memory(2), and
dma-memory(1) never unmapped, which cause the dma memory leak issue.
This patch use another method to map the dma memory for the mrq->data
which can fix this dma memory leak issue.
Fixes: commit 348487cb28e66b0 ("mmc: sdhci: use pipeline mmc requests to improve performance")
Cc: [email protected] # 4.0+
Reported-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Haibo Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 8 +++---
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index c83d110..8d2864b 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -54,8 +54,7 @@ static void sdhci_finish_command(struct sdhci_host *);
static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode);
static void sdhci_enable_preset_value(struct sdhci_host *host, bool enable);
static int sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(struct sdhci_host *host,
- struct mmc_data *data,
- struct sdhci_host_next *next);
+ struct mmc_data *data);
static int sdhci_do_get_cd(struct sdhci_host *host);
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
@@ -495,7 +494,7 @@ static int sdhci_adma_table_pre(struct sdhci_host *host,
goto fail;
BUG_ON(host->align_addr & host->align_mask);
- host->sg_count = sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host, data, NULL);
+ host->sg_count = sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host, data);
if (host->sg_count < 0)
goto unmap_align;
@@ -634,9 +633,11 @@ static void sdhci_adma_table_post(struct sdhci_host *host,
}
}
- if (!data->host_cookie)
+ if (data->host_cookie == COOKIE_MAPPED) {
dma_unmap_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg,
data->sg_len, direction);
+ data->host_cookie = COOKIE_UNMAPPED;
+ }
}
static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
@@ -832,7 +833,7 @@ static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
} else {
int sg_cnt;
- sg_cnt = sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host, data, NULL);
+ sg_cnt = sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host, data);
if (sg_cnt <= 0) {
/*
* This only happens when someone fed
@@ -948,11 +949,13 @@ static void sdhci_finish_data(struct sdhci_host *host)
if (host->flags & SDHCI_USE_ADMA)
sdhci_adma_table_post(host, data);
else {
- if (!data->host_cookie)
+ if (data->host_cookie == COOKIE_MAPPED) {
dma_unmap_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
data->sg, data->sg_len,
(data->flags & MMC_DATA_READ) ?
DMA_FROM_DEVICE : DMA_TO_DEVICE);
+ data->host_cookie = COOKIE_UNMAPPED;
+ }
}
}
@@ -2105,49 +2108,36 @@ static void sdhci_post_req(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq,
struct mmc_data *data = mrq->data;
if (host->flags & SDHCI_REQ_USE_DMA) {
- if (data->host_cookie)
+ if (data->host_cookie == COOKIE_GIVEN ||
+ data->host_cookie == COOKIE_MAPPED)
dma_unmap_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg, data->sg_len,
data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE ?
DMA_TO_DEVICE : DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
- mrq->data->host_cookie = 0;
+ data->host_cookie = COOKIE_UNMAPPED;
}
}
static int sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(struct sdhci_host *host,
- struct mmc_data *data,
- struct sdhci_host_next *next)
+ struct mmc_data *data)
{
int sg_count;
- if (!next && data->host_cookie &&
- data->host_cookie != host->next_data.cookie) {
- pr_debug(DRIVER_NAME "[%s] invalid cookie: %d, next-cookie %d\n",
- __func__, data->host_cookie, host->next_data.cookie);
- data->host_cookie = 0;
+ if (data->host_cookie == COOKIE_MAPPED) {
+ data->host_cookie = COOKIE_GIVEN;
+ return data->sg_count;
}
- /* Check if next job is already prepared */
- if (next ||
- (!next && data->host_cookie != host->next_data.cookie)) {
- sg_count = dma_map_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg,
- data->sg_len,
- data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE ?
- DMA_TO_DEVICE : DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
-
- } else {
- sg_count = host->next_data.sg_count;
- host->next_data.sg_count = 0;
- }
+ WARN_ON(data->host_cookie == COOKIE_GIVEN);
+ sg_count = dma_map_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), data->sg, data->sg_len,
+ data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE ?
+ DMA_TO_DEVICE : DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
if (sg_count == 0)
- return -EINVAL;
+ return -ENOSPC;
- if (next) {
- next->sg_count = sg_count;
- data->host_cookie = ++next->cookie < 0 ? 1 : next->cookie;
- } else
- host->sg_count = sg_count;
+ data->sg_count = sg_count;
+ data->host_cookie = COOKIE_MAPPED;
return sg_count;
}
@@ -2157,16 +2147,10 @@ static void sdhci_pre_req(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq,
{
struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
- if (mrq->data->host_cookie) {
- mrq->data->host_cookie = 0;
- return;
- }
+ mrq->data->host_cookie = COOKIE_UNMAPPED;
if (host->flags & SDHCI_REQ_USE_DMA)
- if (sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host,
- mrq->data,
- &host->next_data) < 0)
- mrq->data->host_cookie = 0;
+ sdhci_pre_dma_transfer(host, mrq->data);
}
static void sdhci_card_event(struct mmc_host *mmc)
@@ -3038,7 +3022,6 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
host->max_clk = host->ops->get_max_clock(host);
}
- host->next_data.cookie = 1;
/*
* In case of Host Controller v3.00, find out whether clock
* multiplier is supported.
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
index 67046ca..7c02ff4 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
@@ -309,9 +309,10 @@ struct sdhci_adma2_64_desc {
*/
#define SDHCI_MAX_SEGS 128
-struct sdhci_host_next {
- unsigned int sg_count;
- s32 cookie;
+enum sdhci_cookie {
+ COOKIE_UNMAPPED,
+ COOKIE_MAPPED,
+ COOKIE_GIVEN,
};
struct sdhci_host {
@@ -505,7 +506,6 @@ struct sdhci_host {
unsigned int tuning_mode; /* Re-tuning mode supported by host */
#define SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 0
- struct sdhci_host_next next_data;
unsigned long private[0] ____cacheline_aligned;
};
--
1.9.1
On 08/07/2015, 11:29 AM, Haibo Chen wrote:
> Currently one mrq->data maybe execute dma_map_sg() twice
> when mmc subsystem prepare over one new request, and the
> following log show up:
> sdhci[sdhci_pre_dma_transfer] invalid cookie: 24, next-cookie 25
Thanks, I will test it shortly.
> @@ -2157,16 +2147,10 @@ static void sdhci_pre_req(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq,
> {
> struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
>
> - if (mrq->data->host_cookie) {
> - mrq->data->host_cookie = 0;
> - return;
> - }
> + mrq->data->host_cookie = COOKIE_UNMAPPED;
Just one question. Should we warn if host_cookie != COOKIE_UNMAPPED
instead of the assignment? In other words, if the assignment is
mandatory, it deserves a comment why.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
On 08/07/2015, 11:29 AM, Haibo Chen wrote:
> Currently one mrq->data maybe execute dma_map_sg() twice
> when mmc subsystem prepare over one new request, and the
> following log show up:
> sdhci[sdhci_pre_dma_transfer] invalid cookie: 24, next-cookie 25
>
> In this condition, mrq->date map a dma-memory(1) in sdhci_pre_req
> for the first time, and map another dma-memory(2) in sdhci_prepare_data
> for the second time. But driver only unmap the dma-memory(2), and
> dma-memory(1) never unmapped, which cause the dma memory leak issue.
>
> This patch use another method to map the dma memory for the mrq->data
> which can fix this dma memory leak issue.
>
> Fixes: commit 348487cb28e66b0 ("mmc: sdhci: use pipeline mmc requests to improve performance")
> Cc: [email protected] # 4.0+
> Reported-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
Reported-and-tested-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
I also added the mentioned WARN_ON in place and it never triggerred. (As
I expected...)
Thanks!
--
js
suse labs