Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xhci: reduce xhci_handshake timeout in xhci_reset
To:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
        <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <quic_ugoswami@quicinc.com>, Jung Daehwan <dh10.jung@samsung.com>
References: <1644836663-29220-1-git-send-email-quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>
 <1644841216-1468-1-git-send-email-quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>
 <d82746d2-4096-1477-42dd-fd393e0ff827@linux.intel.com>
 <20220214135310.GC31021@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>
 <1b9e7641-2ae9-0f81-2ad9-18340d5e148f@linux.intel.com>
 <20220215104920.GE31021@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>
 <20220215170718.GF31021@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>
 <70ebdb8c-1ea5-1a3e-046e-5e457f54726d@linux.intel.com>
From:   Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
Organization: Open Mobile Platform
Message-ID: <f298147d-a5bc-754e-a1a2-0e37b6179b53@omp.ru>
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:44:59 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <70ebdb8c-1ea5-1a3e-046e-5e457f54726d@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/16/22 6:58 PM, Mathias Nyman wrote:

>>>>> The crash reports I have seen are pointing to
>>>>>
>>>>> usb_remove_hcd()->xhci_stop()->xhci_reset()
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so xhci_stop() and xhci_shutdown() both may call xhci_reset() with interrupts
>>>> disabled and spinlock held. In both these cases we're not that interested in the
>>>> outcome of xhci_reset().
>>>>
>>>> But during probe we call xhci_reset() with interrupts enabled without spinlock,
>>>> and here we really care about it succeeding.
>>>> I'm also guessing reset could take a longer time during probe due to possible recent
>>>> BIOS handover, or firmware loading etc.
>>>>
>>>> So how about passing a timeout value to xhci_reset()?
>>>> Give it 10 seconds during probe, and 250ms in the other cases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this suggestion.
>>>
>>> This sounds better compared to the quirks approach. xhci_resume() also seems
>>> to be calling xhci_reset() in the hibernation path, I believe we should treat
>>> this like probe()/startup case and give larger timeout.
>>>
>> I will test the below patch as per Mathias suggestion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pavan
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> index df3522d..031fe90 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> @@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ static int xhci_exit_test_mode(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)
>>  	}
>>  	pm_runtime_allow(xhci_to_hcd(xhci)->self.controller);
>>  	xhci->test_mode = 0;
>> -	return xhci_reset(xhci);
>> +	return xhci_reset(xhci, false);
> 
> Maybe just pass the timeout value directly to xhci_reset().
> Looks like readl_poll_timeout_atomic() uses u64 for timeout_us,
> makes sense to use the same.
> 
> Sergey also pointed out xhci_handshake() incorrectly uses a signed integer for timeouts.
> This could be changed to u64 as well.
> 
> I'll write a patch that does all above

   You mean I don't need to respin my xhci_handshake() patch?
   I'm happy to do that if that's a prevailing opinion. :-)

> -Mathias

MBR, Sergey