From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Cc: mathias.nyman@intel.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] usb: host: xhci: Remove the watchdog timer and use command timer to watch stop endpoint command
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:35:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <583FC4AF.3030502@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMz4kuJABF1=yR8C_VnYThKa_bn2n-GfB_t_DRu5To5SbkF+TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 12/01/2016 02:04 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Hi Baolu,
>
> On 1 December 2016 at 13:45, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/30/2016 05:02 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>> If the hardware never responds to the stop endpoint command, the
>>> URBs will never be completed, and we might hang the USB subsystem.
>>> The original watchdog timer is used to watch if one stop endpoint
>>> command is timeout, if timeout, then the watchdog timer will set
>>> XHCI_STATE_DYING, try to halt the xHCI host, and give back all
>>> pending URBs.
>>>
>>> But now we already have one command timer to control command timeout,
>>> thus we can also use the command timer to watch the stop endpoint
>>> command, instead of one duplicate watchdog timer which need to be
>>> removed.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile we don't need the 'stop_cmds_pending' flag to identy if
>>> this is the last stop endpoint command of one endpoint. Since we
>>> can make sure we only set one stop endpoint command for one endpoint
>>> by 'EP_HALT_PENDING' flag in xhci_urb_dequeue() function. Thus remove
>>> this flag.
>> I am afraid you can't do this. "stop_cmds_pending" was added
>> to fix the problem described in the comments that you want to
>> remove. But I didn't find any fix of this problem in your patch.
> Now we can not pending another stop endpoint command for the same one
> endpoint, since will check 'EP_HALT_PENDING' flag in
> xhci_urb_dequeue() function to avoid this. But after some
> investigation, I think I missed the stop endpoint command in
> xhci_stop_device() which did not check the 'EP_HALT_PENDING' flag,
> maybe need to add 'EP_HALT_PENDING' flag checking in
> xhci_stop_device() function. DId I miss something else? Thanks.
Consider below three threads running on different CPUs at the same time.
Thread A: xhci_handle_cmd_stop_ep() --- in interrupt handler
Thread B: xhci_stop_endpoint_command_timeout() --- timer expired
Thread C: xhci_urb_dequeue --- called by usb core
They are serialized by xhci->lock. Let's consider below sequence:
Thread A:
- delete xhci->cmd_timer), but will fail due to Thread B.
- clear EP_HALT_PENDING bit
Thread B:
- halt the host controller
Thread C:
- set EP_HALT_PENDING bit
- enqueue another stop endpoint command
- add the timer back
Best regards,
Lu Baolu
>
>> - * The timer may also fire if the host takes a very long time to respond to the
>> - * command, and the stop endpoint command completion handler cannot delete the
>> - * timer before the timer function is called. Another endpoint cancellation may
>> - * sneak in before the timer function can grab the lock, and that may queue
>> - * another stop endpoint command and add the timer back. So we cannot use a
>> - * simple flag to say whether there is a pending stop endpoint command for a
>> - * particular endpoint.
>> - *
>> - * Instead we use a combination of that flag and a counter for the number of
>> - * pending stop endpoint commands. If the timer is the tail end of the last
>> - * stop endpoint command, and the endpoint's command is still pending, we assume
>> - * the host is dying.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Lu Baolu
>>
>>> We also need to clean up the command queue before trying to halt the
>>> xHCI host in xhci_stop_endpoint_command_timeout() function.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-01 6:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-30 9:02 Baolin Wang
2016-11-30 14:09 ` Mathias Nyman
2016-12-01 4:54 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-01 13:28 ` Mathias Nyman
2016-12-02 2:46 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-01 5:45 ` Lu Baolu
2016-12-01 6:04 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-01 6:09 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-01 6:35 ` Lu Baolu [this message]
2016-12-01 7:35 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-01 7:44 ` Lu Baolu
2016-12-01 8:03 ` Baolin Wang
2016-12-02 1:17 ` Lu Baolu
2016-12-02 2:48 ` Baolin Wang
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=583FC4AF.3030502@linux.intel.com \
--to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linaro.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@intel.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
Powered by JetHome