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;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:30:16 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@google.com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: ufs: atomic update for clkgating_enable
In-Reply-To: <20201005223635.2922805-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
References: <20201005223635.2922805-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <61df6574cf7b845e1b1f72cda0b0ee02@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-10-06 06:36, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@google.com>
> 
> When giving a stress test which enables/disables clkgating, we hit 
> device
> timeout sometimes. This patch avoids subtle racy condition to address 
> it.
> 
> Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
> Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
> Cc: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@google.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 1d157ff58d817..d929c3d1e58cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1791,19 +1791,19 @@ static ssize_t
> ufshcd_clkgate_enable_store(struct device *dev,
>  		return -EINVAL;
> 
>  	value = !!value;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>  	if (value == hba->clk_gating.is_enabled)
>  		goto out;
> 
> -	if (value) {
> -		ufshcd_release(hba);
> -	} else {
> -		spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +	if (value)
> +		hba->clk_gating.active_reqs--;
> +	else
>  		hba->clk_gating.active_reqs++;
> -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> -	}
> 
>  	hba->clk_gating.is_enabled = value;
>  out:
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>  	return count;
>  }

I agree that we should protect the flag "is_enabled" with spin lock,
but I prefer the old logic of calling ufshcd_release() instead of
just doing hba->clk_gating.active_reqs--, you can use 
__ufshcd_release(),
which is free of locking.

Thanks,

Can Guo.