All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: fix reentrancy of clk_enable() on UP systems
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:21:54 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171227022154.GA7997@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1514309062-1768-1-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com>

On 12/26, David Lechner wrote:
> Reentrant calls to clk_enable() are not working on UP systems. This is
> caused by the fact spin_trylock_irqsave() always returns true when
> CONFIG_SMP=n (and CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n) which causes the reference
> counting to not work correctly when clk_enable_lock() is called twice
> before clk_enable_unlock() is called (this happens when clk_enable()
> is called from within another clk_enable()).
> 
> This introduces a new set of clk_enable_lock() and clk_enable_unlock()
> functions for UP systems that doesn't use spinlocks but effectively does
> the same thing as the SMP version of the functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
> 
> Previous discussion of this issue for reference:
> * https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10108437/
> * https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115483/
> 
> 
>  drivers/clk/clk.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index bb1b1f9..259a77f 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -136,6 +136,8 @@ static void clk_prepare_unlock(void)
>  	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +
>  static unsigned long clk_enable_lock(void)
>  	__acquires(enable_lock)
>  {
> @@ -170,6 +172,43 @@ static void clk_enable_unlock(unsigned long flags)
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&enable_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> +#else
> +
> +static unsigned long clk_enable_lock(void)
> +	__acquires(enable_lock)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	preempt_disable();

Well we certainly don't want to do both irq save and preemption
disabling. Really all we need to do is save away the current
flags to restore them them later. On UP systems, we would do that
on each call to this function. On SMP systems, we would actually
test the enable_owner and up the enable_refcnt outside of the
locked section because if spin_trylock_irqsave() returns a 0, we
have restored the irq flags to whatever they were before, and
then we test enable_owner. So I suppose if it was safe on SMP to
test enable_owner and up the refcnt without holding any sort of
lock then it's also safe on UP, because current is a "special"
variable.

Does this ugly hack do the trick? I really dislike the semi-colon
barf, but I fail to see another way out of this right now.

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index b56c11f51baf..77b2c5bbba68 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -141,7 +141,8 @@ static unsigned long clk_enable_lock(void)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
 
-	if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&enable_lock, flags)) {
+	if ((!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) && ({local_save_flags(flags); 1;})) ||
+	    !spin_trylock_irqsave(&enable_lock, flags)) {
 		if (enable_owner == current) {
 			enable_refcnt++;
 			__acquire(enable_lock);
-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-27  2:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-26 17:24 [PATCH] clk: fix reentrancy of clk_enable() on UP systems David Lechner
2017-12-27  2:21 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2017-12-29  4:26   ` David Lechner
2018-01-03  2:25     ` Stephen Boyd

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=20171227022154.GA7997@codeaurora.org \
    --to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=david@lechnology.com \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.