From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f172.google.com (mail-pg1-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E43313AC0; Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pg1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-5ced19f15c3so780481a12.0; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 08:02:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704643362; x=1705248162; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ubF9iYuqrA4cDqdTdDOmYrnWqJz+YZED4CQ5ndLEUD8=; b=MOQUE2lNdLM8mDu8hpTSWNyggozI5KirHnszqP3Md8Y+dIQdnNSL26Qw159AvgT9t3 nOf8bhKQZsXhOJ645y/YLtt1hofrOvwMnUTxMVCZZD/Cn9nQEzIfoNGGAfOlajKxS2db tugyAkHQ/jzt1XX8hCTSB0whO+kbqwMfuXmAAiE+pHmJEd7i2vQGTnyMb9sDFKzOKdKb UiOhCKC/qaPIbOAp1XF4Wv1Pc8+zWkvZ47IOoxVgrskS4/Kheup8pzrd/kXnfR2QVsv7 XcaOKqdgqlplwr1qvxvl+VS6/31NqlJFkSjZxzk3EHUol3+7sw6Ig5R6O22vUtpdLlJP HZ6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwH5d82VALnN+N06NDoMKUrWv/q935zNQgYmdqAn4UzPZx2dL/J 8QOlB1e1ho6OMAUmlhsgaHc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFnTcEJvXpZlDMsTDLddJNVooMEU9hBSNrdF520U5mapJb2euinHG76hUXlfsM6X7ynbITh9Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a02:b0:1d3:f43a:a2e2 with SMTP id v2-20020a1709029a0200b001d3f43aa2e2mr2599032plp.117.1704643361510; Sun, 07 Jan 2024 08:02:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.51.14] (c-73-231-117-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.231.117.72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22-20020a1709029a9600b001d35223d0besm4527054plp.251.2024.01.07.08.02.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Jan 2024 08:02:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <65dead0b-34a5-4e29-83ec-c26e556f262a@acm.org> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2024 08:02:37 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section Content-Language: en-US To: Kiwoong Kim , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com, h10.kim@samsung.com, hy50.seo@samsung.com, sh425.lee@samsung.com, kwangwon.min@samsung.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com, wkon.kim@samsung.com References: <1704331491-115325-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim@samsung.com> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <1704331491-115325-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/3/24 17:24, Kiwoong Kim wrote: > In IO centric scenarios, especially during a period that > many IO requests are submitted to a same HW queue at the same > time, it's found that one reqeust overwrote a SQ entry > that had been already occupied by another request submitted > in the past. And it eventually led to command timed-out > because one of two requests were overwritten, which could not > be completed. > > [ 74.995185][ T176] exynos-ufs 17100000.ufs: ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag 30 > > Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim > --- > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644 > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > @@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int task_tag, > if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) { > int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc); > struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr; > - struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot; > + struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest; > > spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock); > + dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot; > memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size); > ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq); > spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock); Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@quicinc.com/#t Thanks, Bart.