From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> To: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 15:14:26 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20211007151426.54db0764@collabora.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20211007123916.w4oaooxfbawe6yw3@skn-laptop> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:39:16 +0200 Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> wrote: > > > return 0; > > > > > > free_detect_allocation: > > > @@ -6264,6 +6272,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip *chip) > > > if (chip->options & NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN) > > > return 0; > > > > > > + atomic_set(&chip->suspended, 0); > > > + > > > /* Build bad block table */ > > > ret = nand_create_bbt(chip); > > > if (ret) > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > index 88227044fc86..f7dcbc336170 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > @@ -360,6 +360,8 @@ struct mtd_info { > > > int (*_get_device) (struct mtd_info *mtd); > > > void (*_put_device) (struct mtd_info *mtd); > > > > > > + wait_queue_head_t wait_queue; > > > + > > > > wait_queue doesn't really describe what this waitqueue is used for > > (maybe resume_wq), and the suspended state should be here as well > > (actually, there's one already). > > I'll rename to something meaningful. > > > > Actually, what we need is a way to prevent the device from being > > suspended while accesses are still in progress, and new accesses from > > being queued if a suspend is pending. So, I think you need a readwrite > > lock here: > > > > * take the lock in read mode for all IO accesses, check the > > mtd->suspended value > > - if true, release the lock, and wait (retry on wakeup) > > - if false, just do the IO > > > > * take the lock in write mode when you want to suspend/resume the > > device and update the suspended field. Call wake_up_all() in the > > resume path > > Could we use the chip->lock mutex for this? It's does kinda what you > described above? No you can't. Remember I suggested to move all of that logic to mtdcore.c, which doesn't know about the nand_chip struct. > If we introduce a new lock, do we really need to have the suspended as > an atomic? Nope, I thought we could do without a lock, but we actually need to track active IO requests, not just the suspended state. > > I will test with some wait and retry added to nand_get_device(). Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here: if you move it to the mtd layer, it can't be done in nand_get_device(). But once you've implemented it in mtdcore.c, you should be able to get rid of the nand_chip->suspended field.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> To: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 15:14:26 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20211007151426.54db0764@collabora.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20211007123916.w4oaooxfbawe6yw3@skn-laptop> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:39:16 +0200 Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> wrote: > > > return 0; > > > > > > free_detect_allocation: > > > @@ -6264,6 +6272,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip *chip) > > > if (chip->options & NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN) > > > return 0; > > > > > > + atomic_set(&chip->suspended, 0); > > > + > > > /* Build bad block table */ > > > ret = nand_create_bbt(chip); > > > if (ret) > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > index 88227044fc86..f7dcbc336170 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h > > > @@ -360,6 +360,8 @@ struct mtd_info { > > > int (*_get_device) (struct mtd_info *mtd); > > > void (*_put_device) (struct mtd_info *mtd); > > > > > > + wait_queue_head_t wait_queue; > > > + > > > > wait_queue doesn't really describe what this waitqueue is used for > > (maybe resume_wq), and the suspended state should be here as well > > (actually, there's one already). > > I'll rename to something meaningful. > > > > Actually, what we need is a way to prevent the device from being > > suspended while accesses are still in progress, and new accesses from > > being queued if a suspend is pending. So, I think you need a readwrite > > lock here: > > > > * take the lock in read mode for all IO accesses, check the > > mtd->suspended value > > - if true, release the lock, and wait (retry on wakeup) > > - if false, just do the IO > > > > * take the lock in write mode when you want to suspend/resume the > > device and update the suspended field. Call wake_up_all() in the > > resume path > > Could we use the chip->lock mutex for this? It's does kinda what you > described above? No you can't. Remember I suggested to move all of that logic to mtdcore.c, which doesn't know about the nand_chip struct. > If we introduce a new lock, do we really need to have the suspended as > an atomic? Nope, I thought we could do without a lock, but we actually need to track active IO requests, not just the suspended state. > > I will test with some wait and retry added to nand_get_device(). Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here: if you move it to the mtd layer, it can't be done in nand_get_device(). But once you've implemented it in mtdcore.c, you should be able to get rid of the nand_chip->suspended field. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-07 13:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-10-04 6:56 [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 6:56 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 8:41 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-04 8:41 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-04 8:55 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 8:55 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 9:58 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-04 9:58 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-04 10:12 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 10:12 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-04 11:47 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-04 11:47 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-05 7:09 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-05 7:09 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-05 8:23 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-05 8:23 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-05 8:49 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-05 8:49 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-05 8:58 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-05 8:58 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-07 11:43 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-07 11:43 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-07 12:18 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-07 12:18 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-07 12:39 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-07 12:39 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-07 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon [this message] 2021-10-07 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 10:04 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 10:04 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 11:20 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 11:20 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 11:54 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 11:54 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 14:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: core: protect access to mtd devices " Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 14:38 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 15:30 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 15:30 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 17:31 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 17:31 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 15:35 ` Miquel Raynal 2021-10-08 15:35 ` Miquel Raynal 2021-10-08 16:08 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 16:08 ` Boris Brezillon 2021-10-08 17:50 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 17:50 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 14:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: rawnand: remove suspended check Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 14:38 ` Sean Nyekjaer 2021-10-08 22:05 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-08 22:05 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-08 22:47 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-08 22:47 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20211007151426.54db0764@collabora.com \ --to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \ --cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \ --cc=richard@nod.at \ --cc=sean@geanix.com \ --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.