From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add snd_card_disconnect_sync()
	helper
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:37:15 +0200
Message-ID: <s5hvajfxfx0.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
References: <20171011101618.8736-1-tiwai@suse.de>
 <87fuanv70u.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <s5hfuano5k0.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
 <87efq7v2qf.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <s5hh8v3pelc.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
 <87k1zvn8ci.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
 by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4D8266D69
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:37:17 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <87k1zvn8ci.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 04:26:42 +0200,
Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Takashi
> 
> > > I could confirm this by printing who's stop was called by local quick hack.
> > > 
> > > Maybe timing reason, if kernel has Oops for some reasons,
> > > then, both BE/FE snd_pcm_stop() are called.
> > > If no Oops, BE snd_pcm_stop() only called.
> > 
> > Any pending delayed work (like rtd->delayed_work)?
> > This is flushed at soc_cleanup_card_resources(), but it's called at
> > card removal, thus it's too late for the hot-removal of the
> > component.
> 
> Current my dirver used delayed_work, but we can control it
> by snd_soc_runtime_ignore_pmdown_time();
> I think my driver now doesn't use delayed_work.
> 
> But there is still issue.
> I don't know detail, but it seems 
> snd_pcm_dev_disconnect() and snd_pcm_relase() are called
> it the same time, both are calling snd_pcm_stop().
> 
> Then, snd_pcm_relase() side will calls
> snd_pcm_detach_substream() and snd_pcm_dev_disconnect() side will die.

This must be also specific to DPCM.  Something is really wrong there.

Basically snd_pcm_dev_disconnect() and snd_pcm_release() can't race
since both are protected via pcm->open_mutex.  snd_pcm_stop() calls
are protected even more with substream lock.

> Mark's suggestion (= hiding BE) can solve this ?

Some of the issues might be addressed, yes, but I'm skeptical whether
it covers all.  The BE needs proper locking and refcounting that is
coupled with the FE, I suppose.


Takashi