From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:04:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <242b1d10-2c11-4bb3-8f77-c939ecb5f1a0@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241027082519.576869-2-avri.altman@wdc.com>
On 10/27/24 1:25 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> Introduce a new clock gating lock to seriliaze access to the clock
^^^^^^^^^
serialize
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 099373a25017..b7c7a7dd327f 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1817,13 +1817,13 @@ static void ufshcd_ungate_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hba->clk_gating.gate_work);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON) {
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> return;
> }
>
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> ufshcd_hba_vreg_set_hpm(hba);
> ufshcd_setup_clocks(hba, true);
This would be a great opportunity to replace the spinlock calls with
scoped_guard(), isn't it?
> @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> /*
> * In case you are here to cancel this work the gating state
> * would be marked as REQ_CLKS_ON. In this case save time by
> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
> if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL)
> goto rel_lock;
>
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
Same comment here: please consider using scoped_guard().
> /* put the link into hibern8 mode before turning off clocks */
> if (ufshcd_can_hibern8_during_gating(hba)) {
> @@ -1977,14 +1977,14 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
> * prevent from doing cancel work multiple times when there are
> * new requests arriving before the current cancel work is done.
> */
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> if (hba->clk_gating.state == REQ_CLKS_OFF) {
> hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_OFF;
> trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
> hba->clk_gating.state);
> }
> rel_lock:
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> out:
> return;
> }
ufshcd_gate_work() can be simplified by using guard() and
scoped_guard().
> @@ -2015,9 +2015,9 @@ void ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
> __ufshcd_release(hba);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->clk_gating.lock, flags);
For this function and also for later changes, please use guard().
> diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> index 9ea2a7411bb5..52c822fe2944 100644
> --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> @@ -413,6 +413,7 @@ enum clk_gating_state {
> * @active_reqs: number of requests that are pending and should be waited for
> * completion before gating clocks.
> * @clk_gating_workq: workqueue for clock gating work.
> + * @lock: serielize access to the clk_gating members
^^^^^^^^^
serialize
I don't think that the added comment is correct - 'lock' is used to
serialize access to some struct ufs_clk_gating members but not for
serializing access to all members. Accesses to e.g. gate_work,
ungate_work and clk_gating_workq are not serialized. Please reorder the
struct ufs_clk_gating members as follows:
- Members that are not serialized first.
- Next, 'lock'.
- Finally, the members serialized by 'lock'.
I think it is common in Linux kernel code that structure members are
organized this way.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-28 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-27 8:25 [PATCH 0/2] Untie the host lock entanglement - part 2 Avri Altman
2024-10-27 8:25 ` [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock Avri Altman
2024-10-28 20:04 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2024-10-29 5:39 ` Avri Altman
2024-10-27 8:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_scaling lock Avri Altman
2024-10-28 20:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-10-29 5:40 ` Avri Altman
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=242b1d10-2c11-4bb3-8f77-c939ecb5f1a0@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®