From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72996C433EF for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABED60F70 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240663AbhJHL4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2021 07:56:16 -0400 Received: from first.geanix.com ([116.203.34.67]:37348 "EHLO first.geanix.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230129AbhJHL4N (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2021 07:56:13 -0400 Received: from skn-laptop (_gateway [172.25.0.1]) by first.geanix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FB80C3B0B; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:54:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=geanix.com; s=first; t=1633694055; bh=V4H8MpbgmJT8YmELdRmWupxRXDsKpUaAKyaiUa6BdYA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=SBDgrqR1lAV4msJ24MW2iP+dU6cyqdARS3cN8MZrLHCp7hqN33zlAcLAZCAQjrUNn 67IcMtWqvjHrcGjaRFXBdl5+DRLADKY8ruzXAAu7BSvPOCWJjBolj4Ztthxq4XY83d ipeUgo8U+149rvWytVFBqctqnQ6G0xSBom3YjovspnCvKzOksawSat0exmCim46Xrs 9yYx0j1N7qmDogLR0ZcPrhybl5IVzHQi2NRipvclr8RQIC0ZpkSf/FhHpsZ3cRLGhC 0N6BFwRSpvUNVz0g+d55fkFxcAw6B5XfjqI/MykSbtbGmLqfUY3Wc7xTE5Abfkg1NM Iyki2SdNuQVHQ== Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:54:13 +0200 From: Sean Nyekjaer To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , Vignesh Raghavendra , Boris Brezillon , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Message-ID: <20211008115413.cbkdxv3mpmmkyvjx@skn-laptop> References: <20211005070930.epgxb5qzumk4awxq@skn-laptop> <20211005102300.5da6d480@collabora.com> <20211005084938.jcbw24umhehoiirs@skn-laptop> <20211005105836.6c300f25@collabora.com> <20211007114351.3nafhtpefezxhanc@skn-laptop> <20211007141858.314533f2@collabora.com> <20211007123916.w4oaooxfbawe6yw3@skn-laptop> <20211007151426.54db0764@collabora.com> <20211008100425.uudzlda2n5ojqjzc@skn-laptop> <20211008132038.77231e2a@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211008132038.77231e2a@collabora.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:20:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:04:25 +0200 > Sean Nyekjaer wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:14:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:39:16 +0200 > > > Sean Nyekjaer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 have only added wait_queue to read and write operations. > > It's still racy (see below). > > > I'll have a look into where we should add further checks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > I have moved the suspended atomic and wake_queue to mtdcore.c. > > That doesn't work (see below). > > > And kept > > the suspended variable in nand_base as is fine for chip level suspend > > status. > > Why? If you handle that at the MTD level you shouldn't need it at the > NAND level? BTW, would you please care to detail your reasoning when > you say you did or didn't do something. It's a bit hard to guess what > led you to this conclusion... > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > index c8fd7f758938..6492071eb4da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > @@ -42,15 +42,24 @@ static int mtd_cls_suspend(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct mtd_info *mtd = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > - return mtd ? mtd_suspend(mtd) : 0; > > + if (mtd) { > > + atomic_inc(&mtd->suspended); > > + return mtd_suspend(mtd); > > + } > > + + return 0; > > } > > > > static int mtd_cls_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct mtd_info *mtd = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > - if (mtd) > > + if (mtd) { > > mtd_resume(mtd); > > + atomic_dec(&mtd->suspended); > > + wake_up_all(&mtd->resume_wq); > > + } > > + > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -678,6 +687,10 @@ int add_mtd_device(struct mtd_info *mtd) > > if (error) > > goto fail_nvmem_add; > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&mtd->resume_wq); > > + > > + atomic_set(&mtd->suspended, 0); > > + > > mtd_debugfs_populate(mtd); > > > > device_create(&mtd_class, mtd->dev.parent, MTD_DEVT(i) + 1, NULL, > > @@ -1558,6 +1571,8 @@ int mtd_read_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, struct mtd_oob_ops *ops) > > struct mtd_ecc_stats old_stats = master->ecc_stats; > > int ret_code; > > > > + wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, atomic_read(&mtd->suspended) == 0); > > That's racy: > > thread A thread B > | > enters mtd_read() | > passes the !suspended test | > | enters mtd_suspend() > | sets suspended to 1 > | > starts the IO | > | suspends the device > tries to finish the IO | > on a suspended device | > > BOOM! > > > Using an atomic doesn't solve any of that, you really need to make sure > nothing tries to communicate with the device while you're suspending > it, hence the suggestion to use a rw_semaphore to protect against that. > > > + > > ops->retlen = ops->oobretlen = 0; > > > > ret_code = mtd_check_oob_ops(mtd, from, ops); > > @@ -1597,6 +1612,8 @@ int mtd_write_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, > > struct mtd_info *master = mtd_get_master(mtd); > > int ret; > > > > + wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, atomic_read(&mtd->suspended) == 0); > > + > > Please don't open-code this in every IO path, add helpers hiding all the > complexity. > > To sum-up, that's more or less what I add in mind: > > static void mtd_start_access(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > /* > * Don't take the suspend_lock on devices that don't > * implement the suspend hook. Otherwise, lockdep will > * complain about nested locks when trying to suspend MTD > * partitions or MTD devices created by gluebi which are > * backed by real devices. > */ > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > /* > * Wait until the device is resumed. Should we have a > * non-blocking mode here? > */ > while (1) { > down_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (!mtd->suspended) > return; > > up_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, mtd->suspended == false); > } > } > > static void mtd_end_access(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > up_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > static void mtd_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > int ret; > > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > down_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (mtd->suspended == false) { > ret = mtd->_suspend(mtd); > if (!ret) > mtd->suspended = true; > } > up_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > static void mtd_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > down_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (mtd->suspended) { > if (mtd->_resume) > mtd->_resume(mtd); > > mtd->suspended = false; > > /* The MTD dev has been resumed, wake up all waiters. */ > wake_up_all(&mtd->resume_wq) > } > up_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > You then need to call mtd_{start,end}_access() in all MTD IO path > (read/write/erase and maybe others too). Looks cool. But you are introducing a new lock that basically does the same as chip->lock in nand_base.c one level above ;) You wrote that we didn't want to introduce a new lock :) I will this code... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7558FC433EF for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE5560F43 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:55:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 1FE5560F43 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=geanix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=z4g/b2k+jOzUhts8tYEu561eH8OHubtaImkeboE6Cc0=; b=p4v5pYWldXuD6H udDK/ZLl/fvaYFMk8MNGHbSQ0uPqwPxAmjTy8MbFs3LG0CvwQr+ik/ZJOtHt7Z7okkAlH95cM/Ysl t1XTcyACNWaCpPdEzDfLa54oWy+uiBShx0/aYp4xD1HU6+LPuKv4T78f8ylPewqCiYqwbmttL7y76 wQ0pncW3wCF5VeKFCRIaGEcCcwZC03PHtRrTYP0PWRtRF/VnfsSN49VjwH96M9t2UiVdOHhWbPYvY D8ZMmCBYMSSbiTp1gMDdXwez6ZwUmcOIBGe8u9T8xP1cKmsHUnzG86nntnrNWDMOPnaL4IgAonZ1M sYmJBRAX3fN4/viONoTQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYoSM-002dCI-FW; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 11:54:30 +0000 Received: from first.geanix.com ([116.203.34.67]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYoSD-002dAW-Ew for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 11:54:28 +0000 Received: from skn-laptop (_gateway [172.25.0.1]) by first.geanix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FB80C3B0B; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:54:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=geanix.com; s=first; t=1633694055; bh=V4H8MpbgmJT8YmELdRmWupxRXDsKpUaAKyaiUa6BdYA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=SBDgrqR1lAV4msJ24MW2iP+dU6cyqdARS3cN8MZrLHCp7hqN33zlAcLAZCAQjrUNn 67IcMtWqvjHrcGjaRFXBdl5+DRLADKY8ruzXAAu7BSvPOCWJjBolj4Ztthxq4XY83d ipeUgo8U+149rvWytVFBqctqnQ6G0xSBom3YjovspnCvKzOksawSat0exmCim46Xrs 9yYx0j1N7qmDogLR0ZcPrhybl5IVzHQi2NRipvclr8RQIC0ZpkSf/FhHpsZ3cRLGhC 0N6BFwRSpvUNVz0g+d55fkFxcAw6B5XfjqI/MykSbtbGmLqfUY3Wc7xTE5Abfkg1NM Iyki2SdNuQVHQ== Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:54:13 +0200 From: Sean Nyekjaer To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , Vignesh Raghavendra , Boris Brezillon , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Message-ID: <20211008115413.cbkdxv3mpmmkyvjx@skn-laptop> References: <20211005070930.epgxb5qzumk4awxq@skn-laptop> <20211005102300.5da6d480@collabora.com> <20211005084938.jcbw24umhehoiirs@skn-laptop> <20211005105836.6c300f25@collabora.com> <20211007114351.3nafhtpefezxhanc@skn-laptop> <20211007141858.314533f2@collabora.com> <20211007123916.w4oaooxfbawe6yw3@skn-laptop> <20211007151426.54db0764@collabora.com> <20211008100425.uudzlda2n5ojqjzc@skn-laptop> <20211008132038.77231e2a@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211008132038.77231e2a@collabora.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211008_045421_875391_28436BE2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 53.57 ) X-BeenThere: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+linux-mtd=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:20:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:04:25 +0200 > Sean Nyekjaer wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:14:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:39:16 +0200 > > > Sean Nyekjaer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 have only added wait_queue to read and write operations. > > It's still racy (see below). > > > I'll have a look into where we should add further checks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > I have moved the suspended atomic and wake_queue to mtdcore.c. > > That doesn't work (see below). > > > And kept > > the suspended variable in nand_base as is fine for chip level suspend > > status. > > Why? If you handle that at the MTD level you shouldn't need it at the > NAND level? BTW, would you please care to detail your reasoning when > you say you did or didn't do something. It's a bit hard to guess what > led you to this conclusion... > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > index c8fd7f758938..6492071eb4da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > > @@ -42,15 +42,24 @@ static int mtd_cls_suspend(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct mtd_info *mtd = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > - return mtd ? mtd_suspend(mtd) : 0; > > + if (mtd) { > > + atomic_inc(&mtd->suspended); > > + return mtd_suspend(mtd); > > + } > > + + return 0; > > } > > > > static int mtd_cls_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct mtd_info *mtd = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > - if (mtd) > > + if (mtd) { > > mtd_resume(mtd); > > + atomic_dec(&mtd->suspended); > > + wake_up_all(&mtd->resume_wq); > > + } > > + > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -678,6 +687,10 @@ int add_mtd_device(struct mtd_info *mtd) > > if (error) > > goto fail_nvmem_add; > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&mtd->resume_wq); > > + > > + atomic_set(&mtd->suspended, 0); > > + > > mtd_debugfs_populate(mtd); > > > > device_create(&mtd_class, mtd->dev.parent, MTD_DEVT(i) + 1, NULL, > > @@ -1558,6 +1571,8 @@ int mtd_read_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, struct mtd_oob_ops *ops) > > struct mtd_ecc_stats old_stats = master->ecc_stats; > > int ret_code; > > > > + wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, atomic_read(&mtd->suspended) == 0); > > That's racy: > > thread A thread B > | > enters mtd_read() | > passes the !suspended test | > | enters mtd_suspend() > | sets suspended to 1 > | > starts the IO | > | suspends the device > tries to finish the IO | > on a suspended device | > > BOOM! > > > Using an atomic doesn't solve any of that, you really need to make sure > nothing tries to communicate with the device while you're suspending > it, hence the suggestion to use a rw_semaphore to protect against that. > > > + > > ops->retlen = ops->oobretlen = 0; > > > > ret_code = mtd_check_oob_ops(mtd, from, ops); > > @@ -1597,6 +1612,8 @@ int mtd_write_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, > > struct mtd_info *master = mtd_get_master(mtd); > > int ret; > > > > + wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, atomic_read(&mtd->suspended) == 0); > > + > > Please don't open-code this in every IO path, add helpers hiding all the > complexity. > > To sum-up, that's more or less what I add in mind: > > static void mtd_start_access(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > /* > * Don't take the suspend_lock on devices that don't > * implement the suspend hook. Otherwise, lockdep will > * complain about nested locks when trying to suspend MTD > * partitions or MTD devices created by gluebi which are > * backed by real devices. > */ > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > /* > * Wait until the device is resumed. Should we have a > * non-blocking mode here? > */ > while (1) { > down_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (!mtd->suspended) > return; > > up_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > wait_event(mtd->resume_wq, mtd->suspended == false); > } > } > > static void mtd_end_access(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > up_read(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > static void mtd_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > int ret; > > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > down_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (mtd->suspended == false) { > ret = mtd->_suspend(mtd); > if (!ret) > mtd->suspended = true; > } > up_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > static void mtd_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > if (!mtd->_suspend) > return; > > down_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > if (mtd->suspended) { > if (mtd->_resume) > mtd->_resume(mtd); > > mtd->suspended = false; > > /* The MTD dev has been resumed, wake up all waiters. */ > wake_up_all(&mtd->resume_wq) > } > up_write(&mtd->suspend_lock); > } > > You then need to call mtd_{start,end}_access() in all MTD IO path > (read/write/erase and maybe others too). Looks cool. But you are introducing a new lock that basically does the same as chip->lock in nand_base.c one level above ;) You wrote that we didn't want to introduce a new lock :) I will this code... ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/