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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C655BC282DD for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D01206ED for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387987AbgAIRWr convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:22:47 -0500 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:43235 "EHLO relay6-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731563AbgAIRWr (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:22:47 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 91.224.148.103 Received: from xps13 (unknown [91.224.148.103]) (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20A53C0006; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:22:42 +0100 From: Miquel Raynal To: Martin DEVERA Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jan.pohanka@merz.cz, Christophe Kerello , Boris Brezillon , Richard Weinberger , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Marek Vasut , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Fix unexpected timeouts in waitrdy Message-ID: <20200109182242.03743cf7@xps13> In-Reply-To: <73164aea-d889-21e4-4e7d-345ebd4e5197@eaxlabs.cz> References: <20191210150319.3125-1-devik@eaxlabs.cz> <20200109163752.621c6248@xps13> <73164aea-d889-21e4-4e7d-345ebd4e5197@eaxlabs.cz> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Martin, Martin DEVERA wrote on Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:17:30 +0100: > On 1/9/20 4:37 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Martin Devera wrote on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:03:18 > > +0100: > > > >> The used way to compute jiffies timeout brokes when > >> jiffie difference is 1. Simply add 1 - it has no other > >> side effects. > >> Fixes STM32MP1 FMC2 NAND controller which sometimes failed > >> exactly in this way. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Martin Devera > >> --- > >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 6 +++++- > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > >> index d527e448ce19..beab3a775cc7 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > >> @@ -721,7 +721,11 @@ int nand_soft_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned long timeout_ms) > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> >> - timeout_ms = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms); > >> + /* +1 below is necessary because if we are now in the last fraction > >> + * of jiffy and msecs_to_jiffies is 1 then we will wait only that > >> + * small jiffy fraction - possibly leading to false timeout > >> + */ > >> + timeout_ms = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms) + 1; > >> do { > >> ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, &status, sizeof(status), true); > >> if (ret) > > I don't really what you are fixing here, I suspect the root cause to be > > a wrongly calculated timeout_ms in the calling driver. > > > > It is the responsibility of the caller to use this function with a > > relevant timeout_ms parameter. Maybe Christophe can help you here? > > > Hi Miquel, > > assume that nand_soft_waitrdy is called with timeout_ms==1. I suppose it is > valid case. Jiffies are 1000 for example (assume something more like 1000.99 - > just before incrementing to 1001). > We compute timeout_ms = 1000+msecs_to_jiffies(1) = 1001 (at least for my jiffies rate). > nand_read_data_op is called for the first time and returns 0. During the call jiffies changes > to 1001 thus "while loop" ends here (wrongly). > Notice that routine was called with expected timeout 1ms but actual timeout used was something > between 0...1ms (which I also measured by tracing & scope on the bus). > Or is my analysis flawed somewhere ? I agree with your analysis. Even if nand_soft_waitrdy will no longer be used by the stm32 driver (Christophe sent a patch for that) I am fine applying this change. Could you add a comment to explain the '+1' and resend? Thanks, Miquèl