Message-ID: <54ECA216.306@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:08:54 +0200
From: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130330 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>,
        Sagar Dharia <sdharia@codeaurora.org>,
        Daniel Sneddon <dsneddon@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: qup: Add DMA capabilities
References: <1424782803-13103-1-git-send-email-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> <20150224135622.GH6236@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150224135622.GH6236@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1743
Lines: 56

On 02/24/2015 03:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:00:03PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> 
>> +static void spi_qup_dma_done(void *data)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_qup *qup = data;
>> +
>> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&qup->dma_outstanding))
>> +		complete(&qup->done);
>> +}
> 
> I'm finding it hard to be thrilled about the use of atomics for
> synchronization (they're just generally hard to work with) and...
> 
>> +	cookie = dmaengine_submit(desc);
>> +	ret = dma_submit_error(cookie);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
> 
>> +	atomic_inc(&qup->dma_outstanding);
> 
> ..don't we have two potential races here: one if somehow the DMA manages
> to complete prior to the atomic_inc() (unlikely but that's what race
> conditions are all about really) and one if we are issuing multiple DMAs
> and the early ones complete before the later ones are issued?
> 

yes, there is a potential race between atomic_inc and dma callback. I
reordered these calls to save few checks, and now it returns to me.

I imagine few options here:

 - reorder the dmaengine calls and atomic operations, i.e.
call atomic_inc for rx and tx channels before corresponding
dmaengine_submit and dmaengine_issue_pending.

 - have two different dma callbacks and two completions and waiting for
the two.

 - manage to receive only one dma callback, i.e. the last transfer in
case of presence of the rx_buf and tx_buf at the same time.

 - let me see for better solution.

Thanks for the comments.

regards,
Stan


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/