Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:206:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp2102839pxj; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 03:02:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx59ULoeBsNKybKt24KyX5m75yvm7YnvjoLbnsGQiJbPVD+5A2AxPQ20MOFN00maq4Rcs1f X-Received: by 2002:a92:c9ce:: with SMTP id k14mr10716407ilq.99.1624096960064; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 03:02:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1624096960; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=kBp6jLlnBh6ElQXT7A8M0UJOGEWh6jMg5kutBTcDmMmpwymi4M+N8X/zgN/RFIIM8C HT2qnKC7gF2coBYsEZV6sLyZzsUIlw1y+7XGF4/bPSzMapNze9MvRlh6/GJrsZN1qezH b9Z+mt/j3DwSc1dgUFOgg15vP2TM5T5vr5f1npls0oNt6HJJssLxM6pqM/sQlvFRJQKc aAX6sXFQexkGi1z6gubRQEDoeUiwgBnOFqbuIqVF2fdoRfxa1vCzH41ONuhuZ1w1Kiiu 0rzpr1M4fczXroT1gAUTbga06IEd7cKZeZAcp6mTvc4z8Q6KBESNd6dL3edBoEuL/S07 SX1g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=0JxdX/G9e6b4N6DCTACDA+zxTlQ9XaPV0Uxnw2811Hc=; b=CK1HnL+HQxCv0F1uqrGZwZRiYYyrdaFC0QVhfD60LANdSs+nPLwjRam1wyPXM8Si1V N/7sbq8vNukF6YBloLCDvpRslQhQ4ROh44HrJhw3rowjYE/qF1g3s2XQ8AOKVD9aWJco 6yxKx9yhVTV01fuOUvU6TZKMroPKnhfD4PMPwmjOtB+NVZxTN4JTuRMfz3hrsN7ACTtA WR1ZY4fz3xkW91Eu7AhhuvmZEClt2VgkbZene5NJfu2B9BjPrX9jJNLUOtTrC9YUdYKd XlD+eiqsuJn9Bu740fhxCQBclICwrsJFj/Sath0g7YPpfTGr+4VwP25nkRF+r6l8jhsn eOFA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b6si5474095ilv.8.2021.06.19.03.02.28; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 03:02:40 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231570AbhFSHrA (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 19 Jun 2021 03:47:00 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38960 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229466AbhFSHq7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2021 03:46:59 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 416A26102A; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 07:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:14:42 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Bhaumik Bhatt Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, hemantk@codeaurora.org, jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loic.poulain@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: core: Disable pre-emption for data events tasklet processing Message-ID: <20210619074442.GC4889@workstation> References: <1624054985-31365-1-git-send-email-bbhatt@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1624054985-31365-1-git-send-email-bbhatt@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 03:23:05PM -0700, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote: > With spin_lock_bh(), it is possible that a tasklet processing data > events gets scheduled out if another higher priority tasklet is > ready to run. While the tasklet is sleeping, it can hold the event > ring spinlock and block another tasklet, for example, one processing > an M0 state change event, from acquiring it. This can starve the > core which blocks in an attempt to acquire the spinlock until it > gets released. Fix this issue by disabling pre-emption on the core > processing data events and allow it to run to completion such that > other tasklets do not block for long periods. > Are you sure? IIUC, the tasklets priority is only used while trying to schedule the next pending tasklet. But I don't think a high priority tasklet can preempt the low priority one. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Mani > Fixes: 1d3173a3bae7 ("bus: mhi: core: Add support for processing events from client device") > Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt > --- > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > index 3775c77..02c8c09 100644 > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > @@ -1036,11 +1036,12 @@ void mhi_ev_task(unsigned long data) > { > struct mhi_event *mhi_event = (struct mhi_event *)data; > struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl = mhi_event->mhi_cntrl; > + unsigned long flags; > > /* process all pending events */ > - spin_lock_bh(&mhi_event->lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mhi_event->lock, flags); > mhi_event->process_event(mhi_cntrl, mhi_event, U32_MAX); > - spin_unlock_bh(&mhi_event->lock); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_event->lock, flags); > } > > void mhi_ctrl_ev_task(unsigned long data) > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >