2020-07-23 02:34:59

by Can Guo

Subject: [PATCH v5 2/9] scsi: ufs: Fix imbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold()

The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be
decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if
specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that
scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is
queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold() and
ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work()
returns true.

Signed-off-by: Can Guo <[email protected]>
---
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index 99bd3e4..2907828 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -1611,12 +1611,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool async)
*/
/* fallthrough */
case CLKS_OFF:
- ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON;
trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
hba->clk_gating.state);
- queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
- &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work);
+ if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
+ &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work))
+ ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
/*
* fall through to check if we should wait for this
* work to be done or not.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

2020-07-23 03:23:40

by hongwus

Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] scsi: ufs: Fix imbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt caused by ufshcd_hold()

Hi Can,
On 2020-07-23 10:34, Can Guo wrote:
> The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be
> decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if
> specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that
> scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is
> queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold()
> and
> ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work()
> returns true.
>
> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 99bd3e4..2907828 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1611,12 +1611,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool
> async)
> */
> /* fallthrough */
> case CLKS_OFF:
> - ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
> hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON;
> trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
> hba->clk_gating.state);
> - queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
> - &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work);
> + if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq,
> + &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work))
> + ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
> /*
> * fall through to check if we should wait for this
> * work to be done or not.

Yes, queue_work() may fail for some reasons. We should make sure
scsi_block_reqs_cnt is balanced. Your change looks good to me since it
touches scsi_block_reqs_cnt only when the condition is met.

Reviewed-by: Hongwu Su <[email protected]>