Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <700f14f7-ae3d-410c-8b10-2a83221aba3c@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2023 22:04:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after
 timeout in busy_loop()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
References: <20230911193937.302552-1-swboyd@chromium.org>
 <20230911193937.302552-2-swboyd@chromium.org>
From:   Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230911193937.302552-2-swboyd@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 9/11/2023 12:39 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It's possible for the polling loop in busy_loop() to get scheduled away
> for a long time.
> 
>   status = ipc_read_status(scu); // status = IPC_STATUS_BUSY
>   <long time scheduled away>
>   if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
> 
> If this happens, then the status bit could change while the task is
> scheduled away and this function would never read the status again after
> timing out. Instead, the function will return -ETIMEDOUT when it's
> possible that scheduling didn't work out and the status bit was cleared.
> Bit polling code should always check the bit being polled one more time
> after the timeout in case this happens.
> 
> Fix this by reading the status once more after the while loop breaks.
> The read_poll_timeout() macro implements all of this, and it is
> shorter, so use that macro here to consolidate code and fix this.
> 
> There were some concerns with using read_poll_timeout() because it uses
> timekeeping, and timekeeping isn't running early on or during the late
> stages of system suspend or early stages of system resume, but an audit
> of the code concluded that this code isn't called during those times so
> it is safe to use the macro.
> 
> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Fixes: e7b7ab3847c9 ("platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Sleeping is fine when polling")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>


-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer