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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with
 that of the FE
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc:     alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>, vkoul@kernel.org,
        broonie@kernel.org, Gyeongtaek Lee <gt82.lee@samsung.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
References: <20211013143050.244444-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <20211013143050.244444-6-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <2847a6d1-d97f-4161-c8b6-03672cf6645c@nvidia.com>
 <s5hmtnavisi.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
 <e2a79095-b8ce-9dd4-3e6d-00f8dda99f30@linux.intel.com>
 <s5h1r4muwlj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <8aa4fa07-2b55-3927-f482-c2fd2b01a22e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:22:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <s5h1r4muwlj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


> The FE stream locks are necessary only two points: at adding and
> deleting the BE in the link.  We used dpcm_lock in other places, but
> those are superfluous or would make problem if converted to a FE
> stream lock.

I must be missing a fundamental concept here - possibly a set of concepts...

It is my understanding that the FE-BE connection can be updated
dynamically without any relationship to the usual ALSA steps, e.g. as a
result of a control being changed by a user.

So if you only protect the addition/removal, isn't there a case where
the for_each_dpcm_be() loop would either miss a BE or point to an
invalid one?

In other words, don't we need the *same* lock to be used
a) before changing and
b) walking through the list?

I also don't get what would happen if the dpcm_lock was converted to an
FE stream lock. It works fine in my tests, so if there's limitation I
didn't see it.

>>> In addition, a lock around dpcm_show_state() might be needed to be
>>> replaced with card->pcm_mutex, and we may need to revisit whether all
>>> other paths take card->pcm_mutex.
>>
>> What happens if we show the state while a trigger happens? That's my
>> main concern with using two separate locks (pcm_mutex and FE stream
>> lock) to protect the same list, there are still windows of time where
>> the list is not protected.
> 
> With the proper use of mutex, the list itself is protected.
> If we need to protect the concurrent access to each BE in the show
> method, an additional BE lock is needed in that part.  But that's a
> subtle issue, as the link traversal itself is protected by the mutex.

If I look at your patch2, dpcm_be_disconnect() protects the list removal
with the fe stream lock, but the show state is protected by both the
pcm_mutex and the fe stream lock.

I have not been able to figure out when you need
a) the pcm_mutex only
b) the fe stream lock only
c) both pcm_mutex and fe stream lock