From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 2/3] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:06:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB65754AAF1FD62DC4ECF32A69FC222@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2955aa00-824d-4803-96f6-35575ae9560e@acm.org>
> On 11/18/24 6:41 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index be5fe2407382..638d9c0e2603 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -1816,19 +1816,17 @@ static void ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling(struct
> ufs_hba *hba)
> > static void ufshcd_ungate_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > - unsigned long flags;
> > struct ufs_hba *hba = container_of(work, struct ufs_hba,
> > clk_gating.ungate_work);
> >
> > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hba->clk_gating.gate_work);
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > - if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON) {
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > - return;
> > + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock)
> > + {
> > + if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON)
> > + return;
> > }
>
> Here and elsewhere, please move "{" to the end of the "scoped_guard()"
> line since that is the style used in all other Linux kernel code (I know that
> clang-format gets this wrong).
Yeah - I was running clang-format.
Done.
Thanks,
Avri
>
> > /* host lock must be held before calling this variant */
>
> Please remove this comment since your patch makes it incorrect and replace
> it with a lockdep_assert_held() call.
Done.
>
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + if (ufshcd_has_pending_tasks(hba) ||
> > + hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL) {
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>
> Why explicit lock/unlock calls instead of using scoped_guard()?
Should I apply those to host_lock as well?
I find it a bit confusing because in this change using guard et al. is limited to the new locks only.
>
> > diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h index
> > d7aca9e61684..8f9997b0dbf9 100644
> > --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > @@ -403,6 +403,8 @@ enum clk_gating_state {
> > * delay_ms
> > * @ungate_work: worker to turn on clocks that will be used in case of
> > * interrupt context
> > + * @clk_gating_workq: workqueue for clock gating work.
> > + * @lock: serialize access to some struct ufs_clk_gating members
>
> Please document that @lock is the outer lock relative to the host lock.
Not sure what you mean?
host_lock is nested in one place only, should this goes to the @lock documentation?
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-21 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-18 14:41 [PATCH v4 0/3] Untie the host lock entanglement - part 2 Avri Altman
2024-11-18 14:41 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] scsi: ufs: core: Prepare to introduce a new clock_gating lock Avri Altman
2024-11-21 20:28 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-11-21 20:50 ` Avri Altman
2024-11-18 14:41 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce " Avri Altman
2024-11-21 20:44 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-11-21 21:06 ` Avri Altman [this message]
2024-11-21 21:14 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-11-21 21:39 ` Avri Altman
2024-11-18 14:41 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_scaling lock 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=DM6PR04MB65754AAF1FD62DC4ECF32A69FC222@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--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®