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;
Message-ID: <46ceea13-c8ba-8d67-604e-b761feabc50c@sw-optimization.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:45:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: plx_dma: Fix potential deadlock on
 &plxdev->ring_lock
Content-Language: de-DE
To:     Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        vkoul@kernel.org, Yunbo Yu <yuyunbo519@gmail.com>,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
References: <20230726104827.60382-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
 <9378e69f-2bd4-9d8d-c736-b8799f6ebecc@deltatee.com>
 <ecf68b20-0a07-18bb-42a8-e622054b01f8@wanadoo.fr>
 <0e4caa6c-d5bd-61e7-2ef6-300973cd2db6@deltatee.com>
 <CAAo+4rW_rTsY=TpxZwO8yHB5gFkRKyTvy6kQ-eeiY0vg4+fuYg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Eric Schwarz <eas@sw-optimization.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAo+4rW_rTsY=TpxZwO8yHB5gFkRKyTvy6kQ-eeiY0vg4+fuYg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

Am 27.07.2023 um 08:48 schrieb Chengfeng Ye:
> Hi Logan and Christophe,
> 
> Thanks much for the reply and reminder, and yes, spin_lock_bh() should
> be better.
> 
> When I wrote the patch I thought the spin_lock_bh() cannot be nested,
> and afraid that if some outside callers called .dma_tx_status() callback
> with softirq already disable, then spin_unlock_bh() would unintentionally
> re-enable softirq(). spin_lock_irqsave() is always safer in general thus I
> used it.
> 
> But I just check the document [1] about these API and found that _bh()
> can be nested. Then use spin_lock_bh() should be better due to
> performance concern.
> 
> 
>> So perhaps we should just revert 1d05a0bdb420?
> Then for this one I think revert 1d05a0bdb420 should be enough. May I
> ask to revert that patch, should I do anything further? (like sending
> a new patch).
> 
>> as explained in another reply [1], would spin_lock_bh() be enough in
>> such a case?
> For the another one [2], I would send a v2 patch to change to spin_lock_bh()
> 
> [1] http://books.gigatux.nl/mirror/kerneldevelopment/0672327201/ch07lev1sec6.html
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5125e39b-0faf-63fc-0c51-982b2a567e21@wanadoo.fr/

For uniformity reason across drivers and also that not something else 
gets missed please compare your requirements and solution to the 
implementation of the "altera-msgdma" driver (altera-msgdma.c).

W/ special emphasis on commit edf10919e5fc ("dmaengine: altera: fix 
spinlock usage")

spin_lock_bh was changed to spin_lock_irqsave w/ this patch.

Cheers
Eric