Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@amd.com>
cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
        Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>,
        "Xu, Andiry" <Andiry.Xu@amd.com>, USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] USB host: Fix lockdep warning in AMD PLL quirk
In-Reply-To: <20110411161647.GK23633@amd.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1104111221000.1975-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2115
Lines: 60

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Roedel, Joerg wrote:

> > > +commit:
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > +	if (amd_chipset.probe_count > 0) {
> > > +		/* race - someone else was faster - drop devices */
> > > +
> > > +		/* Mark that we where here */
> > > +		amd_chipset.probe_count++;
> > 
> > This line should be moved above the "if" statement, since you always 
> > want to increment the count.
> 
> No, probe_count can't be incremented here because the probe is not
> finished yet.

I don't follow you.  Sure it is finished; this is the "commit" part of 
the probe.

>  If another thread jumps in after the lock is released and
> detects probe_count > 0 while the probe hasn't happened the quirk will
> fail. So we need to make sure that amd_chipset.probe_count does not
> become > 0 before the probe is finished.

I meant the increment should be done before the "if" statement but
after the spin_lock_irqsave().  That way nobody else can jump in at the
wrong time.

> > > +		ret = amd_chipset.probe_result;
> > > +
> > > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > +		if (info.nb_dev)
> > > +			pci_dev_put(info.nb_dev);
> > > +		if (info.smbus_dev)
> > > +			pci_dev_put(info.smbus_dev);
> > > +
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		/* no race - commit the result */
> > > +		info.probe_count++;
> > 
> > This isn't right, because info.probe_count was initialized to 0.  Maybe 
> > amd_chipset.probe_count should be made into a separate variable, not a 
> > part of the structure, like amd_lock.
> 
> The purpose of the struct is structuring of data. In theory all of its
> members could be turned into global variables. The amd_lock is different
> because it does not only protect the struct but also access to the
> hardware while the quirk is applied/unapplied.

Do it however you prefer.  But as it stands now, the patch is wrong.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/