From: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, acelan.kao@canonical.com,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] USB: Disable LPM on WD19's Realtek Hub during setting its ports to U0
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:19:07 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90B37743-30D1-41BB-8272-D5FBDC89C88F@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2001041117130.7125-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
> On Jan 5, 2020, at 00:20, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>
>>>>>> @@ -3533,9 +3533,17 @@ int usb_port_resume(struct usb_device *udev, pm_message_t msg)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* see 7.1.7.7; affects power usage, but not budgeting */
>>>>>> - if (hub_is_superspeed(hub->hdev))
>>>>>> + if (hub_is_superspeed(hub->hdev)) {
>>>>>> + if (hub->hdev->quirks & USB_QUIRK_DISABLE_LPM_ON_U0) {
>>>>>> + usb_lock_device(hub->hdev);
>>>>>> + usb_unlocked_disable_lpm(hub->hdev);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> status = hub_set_port_link_state(hub, port1, USB_SS_PORT_LS_U0);
>>>>>> - else
>>>>>> + if (hub->hdev->quirks & USB_QUIRK_DISABLE_LPM_ON_U0) {
>>>>>> + usb_unlocked_enable_lpm(hub->hdev);
>>>>>> + usb_unlock_device(hub->hdev);
>>>>>
>>>>> The locking here seems questionable. Doesn't this code sometimes get
>>>>> called with the hub already locked? Or with the child device locked
>>>>> (in which case locking the hub would violate the normal locking order:
>>>>> parent first, child second)?
>>>
>>> I did a little checking. In many cases the child device _will_ be
>>> locked at this point.
>>>
>>>> Maybe introduce a new lock? The lock however will only be used by this specific hub.
>>>> But I still want the LPM can be enabled for this hub.
>>>
>>> Do you really need to lock the hub at all? What would the lock protect
>>> against?
>>
>> There can be multiple usb_port_resume() run at the same time for different ports, so this is to prevent LPM enable/disable race.
>
> But there can't really be an LPM enable/disable race, can there? The
> individual function calls are protected by the bandwidth mutex taken by
> the usb_unlocked_{en|dis}able_lpm routines, and the overall LPM setting
> is controlled by the hub device's lpm_disable_counter.
For enable/disable LPM itself, there's no race.
But the lock here is to protect hub_set_port_link_state().
If we don't lock the hub, other instances of usb_port_resume() routine can enable LPM and we want the LPM stays disabled until hub_set_port_link_state() is done.
Kai-Heng
>
> So I think you don't need to lock the hub here.
>
> Alan Stern
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-06 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-03 8:40 [PATCH 1/3] xhci: Ensure link state is U3 after setting USB_SS_PORT_LS_U3 Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-03 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] xhci: Wait until link state trainsits to U0 after setting USB_SS_PORT_LS_U0 Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-10 15:29 ` Mathias Nyman
2020-01-13 9:18 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-14 14:48 ` Mathias Nyman
2020-01-03 8:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] USB: Disable LPM on WD19's Realtek Hub during setting its ports to U0 Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-03 15:21 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-03 16:25 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-03 16:54 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-04 6:41 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-04 16:20 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-06 6:19 ` Kai-Heng Feng [this message]
2020-01-06 15:08 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-10 7:35 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-10 8:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] USB: Disable LPM on WD19's Realtek Hub Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-10 15:40 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-10 15:51 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-10 16:36 ` Alan Stern
2020-01-10 16:46 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-11 19:23 ` Greg KH
2020-01-13 9:06 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-10 9:34 ` [PATCH 1/3] xhci: Ensure link state is U3 after setting USB_SS_PORT_LS_U3 Mathias Nyman
2020-01-13 9:10 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-01-14 15:07 ` Mathias Nyman
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=90B37743-30D1-41BB-8272-D5FBDC89C88F@canonical.com \
--to=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
--cc=acelan.kao@canonical.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).