Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:20:50 +0800
From:   hongwus@codeaurora.org
To:     Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, sh425.lee@samsung.com,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] scsi: ufs: Fix imbalanced scsi_block_reqs_cnt
 caused by ufshcd_hold()
In-Reply-To: <1595471649-25675-3-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
References: <1595471649-25675-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1595471649-25675-3-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <307b91fd2d7a59a3e1caa1819e2593e5@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <cang@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  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 <hongwus@codeaurora.org>