From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
vkoul@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
Gyeongtaek Lee <gt82.lee@samsung.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with that of the FE
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:22:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8aa4fa07-2b55-3927-f482-c2fd2b01a22e@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <s5h1r4muwlj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
> The FE stream locks are necessary only two points: at adding and
> deleting the BE in the link. We used dpcm_lock in other places, but
> those are superfluous or would make problem if converted to a FE
> stream lock.
I must be missing a fundamental concept here - possibly a set of concepts...
It is my understanding that the FE-BE connection can be updated
dynamically without any relationship to the usual ALSA steps, e.g. as a
result of a control being changed by a user.
So if you only protect the addition/removal, isn't there a case where
the for_each_dpcm_be() loop would either miss a BE or point to an
invalid one?
In other words, don't we need the *same* lock to be used
a) before changing and
b) walking through the list?
I also don't get what would happen if the dpcm_lock was converted to an
FE stream lock. It works fine in my tests, so if there's limitation I
didn't see it.
>>> In addition, a lock around dpcm_show_state() might be needed to be
>>> replaced with card->pcm_mutex, and we may need to revisit whether all
>>> other paths take card->pcm_mutex.
>>
>> What happens if we show the state while a trigger happens? That's my
>> main concern with using two separate locks (pcm_mutex and FE stream
>> lock) to protect the same list, there are still windows of time where
>> the list is not protected.
>
> With the proper use of mutex, the list itself is protected.
> If we need to protect the concurrent access to each BE in the show
> method, an additional BE lock is needed in that part. But that's a
> subtle issue, as the link traversal itself is protected by the mutex.
If I look at your patch2, dpcm_be_disconnect() protects the list removal
with the fe stream lock, but the show state is protected by both the
pcm_mutex and the fe stream lock.
I have not been able to figure out when you need
a) the pcm_mutex only
b) the fe stream lock only
c) both pcm_mutex and fe stream lock
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-15 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20211013143050.244444-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: remove snd_soc_dpcm_fe_can_update() Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: don't export local functions, use static Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: use proper indentation on 'continue' Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: introduce snd_soc_dpcm_fe_lock_irq/unlock_irq() Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-15 6:24 ` Sameer Pujar
2021-10-15 12:24 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: align BE 'atomicity' with that of the FE Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-15 6:24 ` Sameer Pujar
2021-10-15 7:39 ` Takashi Iwai
2021-10-15 11:22 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-15 12:04 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-15 15:38 ` Takashi Iwai
2021-10-15 16:22 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart [this message]
2021-10-15 16:56 ` Takashi Iwai
2021-10-15 17:08 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: remove dpcm spin_lock, use PCM stream lock Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: protect for_each_dpcm_be() loops Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-15 6:24 ` Sameer Pujar
2021-10-15 11:02 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/13] ASoC: soc-compress: " Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/13] ASoC: sh: rcar: " Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/13] ASoC: fsl: asrc_dma: " Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: serialize BE triggers Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: test refcount before triggering Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-10-13 14:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/13] ASoC: soc-pcm: fix BE handling of PAUSE_RELEASE Pierre-Louis Bossart
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=8aa4fa07-2b55-3927-f482-c2fd2b01a22e@linux.intel.com \
--to=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gt82.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=spujar@nvidia.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
/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®