[PATCH v2 3/5] mmc: dw_mmc: Add locking to the CTO timer
shawn.lin at rock-chips.com
Mon Oct 16 17:54:05 PDT 2017
On 2017/10/13 12:20, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> On 2017/10/13 4:11, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>> This attempts to instill a bit of paranoia to the code dealing with
>>> the CTO timer. It's believed that this will make the CTO timer more
>>> robust in the case that we're having very long interrupt latencies.
>> Ack. It could help fix some problems observed.
>>> Note that I originally thought that perhaps this patch was being
>>> overly paranoid and wasn't really needed, but then while I was running
>>> mmc_test on an rk3399 board I saw one instance of the message:
>>> dwmmc_rockchip fe320000.dwmmc: Unexpected interrupt latency
>>> I had debug prints in the CTO timer code and I found that it was
>>> running CMD 13 at the time.
>>> ...so even though this patch seems like it might be overly paranoid,
>>> maybe it really isn't?
>>> Presumably the bad interrupt latency experienced was due to the fact
>>> that I had serial console enabled as serial console is typically where
>>> I place blame when I see absurdly large interrupt latencies. In this
>>> particular case there was an (unrelated) printout to the serial
>>> console just before I saw the "Unexpected interrupt latency" printout.
>>> ...and actually, I managed to even reproduce the problems by running
>>> "iw mlan0 scan > /dev/null" while mmc_test was running. That not only
>>> does a bunch of PCIe traffic but it also (on my system) outputs some
>>> SELinux log spam.
>>>> Fixes: 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken command
>> transfer over scheme")
>>> Tested-by: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel at esmil.dk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Removed extra "int i"
>>> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 91
>>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
>>> index 16516c528a88..50148991f30e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
>>> @@ -403,6 +403,7 @@ static inline void dw_mci_set_cto(struct dw_mci *host)
>>> unsigned int cto_clks;
>>> unsigned int cto_div;
>>> unsigned int cto_ms;
>>> + unsigned long irqflags;
>>> cto_clks = mci_readl(host, TMOUT) & 0xff;
>>> cto_div = (mci_readl(host, CLKDIV) & 0xff) * 2;
>>> @@ -413,8 +414,24 @@ static inline void dw_mci_set_cto(struct dw_mci
>>> /* add a bit spare time */
>>> cto_ms += 10;
>>> - mod_timer(&host->cto_timer,
>>> - jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(cto_ms) + 1);
>>> + /*
>>> + * The durations we're working with are fairly short so we have to
>>> + * extra careful about synchronization here. Specifically in
>>> hardware a
>>> + * command timeout is _at most_ 5.1 ms, so that means we expect an
>>> + * interrupt (either command done or timeout) to come rather
>>> + * after the mci_writel. ...but just in case we have a long
>>> + * latency let's add a bit of paranoia.
>>> + *
>>> + * In general we'll assume that at least an interrupt will be
>>> + * in hardware by the time the cto_timer runs. ...and if it
>>> + * been asserted in hardware by that time then we'll assume it'll
>>> + * come.
>>> + */
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->irq_lock, irqflags);
>>> + if (!test_bit(EVENT_CMD_COMPLETE, &host->pending_events))
>>> + mod_timer(&host->cto_timer,
>>> + jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(cto_ms) + 1);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->irq_lock, irqflags);
>> IIUC, this change is beacuse you move
>> mci_writel(host, CMD, cmd_flags | SDMMC_CMD_START) before
>> setting up the timer, so there is a timing gap that the cmd_done
>> already comes and handled by dw_mci_interrupt->dw_mci_cmd_interrupt.
>> At this point, we don't need the cto timer at all.
> As per below, if I don't move the mci_writel() before setting up the
> timer then there's still a race. ...and actually that race was harder
> for me to write code for, but I invite you to try to see if it's
> somehow cleaner.
>>> static void dw_mci_start_command(struct dw_mci *host,
>>> @@ -429,11 +446,11 @@ static void dw_mci_start_command(struct dw_mci
>>> wmb(); /* drain writebuffer */
>>> dw_mci_wait_while_busy(host, cmd_flags);
>>> + mci_writel(host, CMD, cmd_flags | SDMMC_CMD_START);
>>> /* response expected command only */
>>> if (cmd_flags & SDMMC_CMD_RESP_EXP)
>>> - mci_writel(host, CMD, cmd_flags | SDMMC_CMD_START);
>> But why? If we still keep the original logic, it's always correct
>> that cmd_done comes after setting up the cto timer. So could you
>> eleborate a bit more to help me understand the real intention here?
> No matter which order you put things, there's a race one way or the
> other. You need a lock.
> Let's think about the old code you wrote. You did this:
> 1. Start the CTO timer.
> 2. Start the command.
> Now if you (somehow) take 20 ms to handle the interrupt, then this happens:
> 1. Start the CTO timer.
> 2. Start the command.
> 3. Interrupt is pending, but interrupt handler doesn't run yet.
> 4. CTO timer fires and enqueues CTO timeout.
> 5. Interrupt finally fires.
OK, got it.
> Now normally things are pretty bad if you've got an interrupt latency
> of 20 ms. ...and, in fact, I originally wrote up a commit that simply
> explained why the race didn't matter and was thinking of posting that
> instead of this one. I wrote up:
> * Start a timer to detect missing cmd timeout if we expect a response.
> * Note that we need to be a little careful about race conditions here
> * since our timer will be racing with the actual hardware interrupt
> * and things would get confused if both of them happened.
> * We end up avoiding races here mostly because of our 10 ms "spare
> * time" buffer above. That's probably reliable enough because:
> * - There's "guaranteed" "very little" time between setting the timer
> * and starting the command. We're holding a spinlock (host->lock)
> * in all calls to this function so we won't get preempted. Possibly
> * we could get interrupts still, but that shouldn't add up to
> * anything like the 10 ms spare time.
> * - We expect that when the actual interrupt fires that our interrupt
> * routine should get called "relatively quickly" (compared to the
> * 10 ms buffer) and will be able to cancel this timer.
> ...but then I ran a whole bunch of tests and I found that, as far as I
> could tell, we actually _were_ getting a super long interrupt latency.
> Specifically I saw the printout "Unexpected interrupt latency" in my
> patch. In order to see that printout in my patch (which even starts
> the command _before_ the CTO timer), the only explanation is bad
> interrupt latency, right? Also: based on my past experience I believe
> it is possible to get upwards of 100 ms interrupt latency if you've
> got serial console enabled. printk, especially printk from an
> interrupt context, can do some funny things.
Right! It makes sense to me now.
> ...but this stuff is always hard to get right, so if I messed up the
> above please let me know! I tried to think of all of the cases so it
> would work no matter if delays happened in any random place but
> concurrency is hard.
Yes, it looks hard to get concurrency right. I have a comment for your
DRTO case(patch 5). Let's do some brainstorm there.
More information about the Linux-rockchip