* [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section
[not found] <CGME20240104012454epcas2p36b58220b4c89ee72f1e095b34d329be2@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
@ 2024-01-04 1:24 ` Kiwoong Kim
2024-01-07 16:02 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kiwoong Kim @ 2024-01-04 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-scsi, linux-kernel, alim.akhtar, avri.altman, bvanassche,
jejb, martin.petersen, beanhuo, adrian.hunter, h10.kim, hy50.seo,
sh425.lee, kwangwon.min, junwoo80.lee, wkon.kim
Cc: Kiwoong Kim
In IO centric scenarios, especially during a period that
many IO requests are submitted to a same HW queue at the same
time, it's found that one reqeust overwrote a SQ entry
that had been already occupied by another request submitted
in the past. And it eventually led to command timed-out
because one of two requests were overwritten, which could not
be completed.
[ 74.995185][ T176] exynos-ufs 17100000.ufs: ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag 30
Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int task_tag,
if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
- struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
+ struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
+ dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section
2024-01-04 1:24 ` [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section Kiwoong Kim
@ 2024-01-07 16:02 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-08 0:51 ` Kiwoong Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2024-01-07 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kiwoong Kim, linux-scsi, linux-kernel, alim.akhtar, avri.altman,
jejb, martin.petersen, beanhuo, adrian.hunter, h10.kim, hy50.seo,
sh425.lee, kwangwon.min, junwoo80.lee, wkon.kim
On 1/3/24 17:24, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> In IO centric scenarios, especially during a period that
> many IO requests are submitted to a same HW queue at the same
> time, it's found that one reqeust overwrote a SQ entry
> that had been already occupied by another request submitted
> in the past. And it eventually led to command timed-out
> because one of two requests were overwritten, which could not
> be completed.
>
> [ 74.995185][ T176] exynos-ufs 17100000.ufs: ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag 30
>
> Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int task_tag,
> if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
> struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
> - struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> + struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
>
> spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
> + dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
> ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
> spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock
protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@quicinc.com/#t
Thanks,
Bart.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section
2024-01-07 16:02 ` Bart Van Assche
@ 2024-01-08 0:51 ` Kiwoong Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kiwoong Kim @ 2024-01-08 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Bart Van Assche',
linux-scsi, linux-kernel, alim.akhtar, avri.altman, jejb,
martin.petersen, beanhuo, adrian.hunter, h10.kim, hy50.seo,
sh425.lee, kwangwon.min, junwoo80.lee, wkon.kim
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> unsigned int task_tag,
> > if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> > int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
> > struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
> > - struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr +
> hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> > + struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
> >
> > spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
> > + dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> > memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
> > ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
> > spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
>
> Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock
> protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@quicinc.com/#t
I didn’t see it. Thank you for letting me know.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-08 0:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CGME20240104012454epcas2p36b58220b4c89ee72f1e095b34d329be2@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
2024-01-04 1:24 ` [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section Kiwoong Kim
2024-01-07 16:02 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-08 0:51 ` Kiwoong Kim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).