Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1611267 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: always wait in mbox_send_message for blocking Tx mode

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: always wait in mbox_send_message for  blocking Tx mode Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 20:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: always wait in mbox_send_message for  blocking Tx mode Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-03-29 13:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: always wait in mbox_send_message for  blocking Tx mode Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 19:50 +0200

#1611267 — Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: always wait in mbox_send_message for blocking Tx mode

Hi Sudeep,

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> There exists a race when msg_submit return immediately as there was an
> active request being processed which may have completed just before it's
> checked again in mbox_send_message. This will result in return to the
> caller without waiting in mbox_send_message even when it's blocking Tx.
>
> This patch fixes the issue by waiting for the completion always if Tx
> is in blocking mode.
>
> Fixes: 2b6d83e2b8b7 ("mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox")
> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Hi Jassi,
>
> Here are fixes for few issues we encountered when dealing with multiple
> requests on multiple channels simultaneously.
>
Thanks for finding the bug.

I see patch-1 tries to fix the bug.  Patch-2,3 try to fix the
ramifications of the bug
but they may change behaviour for some users. Do you face any issue even after
applying patch-1 ?

Thanks

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1611851

On 28/03/17 19:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> There exists a race when msg_submit return immediately as there was an
>> active request being processed which may have completed just before it's
>> checked again in mbox_send_message. This will result in return to the
>> caller without waiting in mbox_send_message even when it's blocking Tx.
>>
>> This patch fixes the issue by waiting for the completion always if Tx
>> is in blocking mode.
>>
>> Fixes: 2b6d83e2b8b7 ("mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox")
>> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
>> Reported-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Hi Jassi,
>>
>> Here are fixes for few issues we encountered when dealing with multiple
>> requests on multiple channels simultaneously.
>>
> Thanks for finding the bug.
> 
> I see patch-1 tries to fix the bug.  Patch-2,3 try to fix the
> ramifications of the bug but they may change behaviour for some users.
> Do you face any issue even after applying patch-1 ?
> 

Unfortunately yes. Are you concerned with the change in return value on
timeout ? I understand and then I chose -ETIME vs -ETIMEDOUT as hardware
can still use it and we can distinguish the software timer expiry from
that. Even -EIO seems incorrect for s/w timeout as it exists today, but
I agree it has some impact on existing users.

Also Patch 3 seems independent for me just to avoid complete call if it
was empty message.

Alexey also brought up another issue which is relating to ordering and
may require completion flags per message instead of per channel. Today
we can't guarantee that first blocker on the wait queue is same as the
first in the mailbox queue.

e.g.:
	Thread#1(T1)		   Thread#2(T2)
     mbox_send_message		 mbox_send_message
            |				|
	    V				|
	add_to_rbuf(M1)			V
	    |			  add_to_rbuf(M2)
	    |				|
	    |				V
	    V			   msg_submit(picks M1)
	msg_submit			|
	    |				V
	    V			wait_for_completion(on M2)
     wait_for_completion(on M1)		|  (1st in waitQ)
     	    |	(2nd in waitQ)		V
     	    V			wake_up(on completion of M1)<--incorrect

I will let him dive in as he had some thoughts on that.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1612190

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/03/17 19:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> Hi Sudeep,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>> There exists a race when msg_submit return immediately as there was an
>>> active request being processed which may have completed just before it's
>>> checked again in mbox_send_message. This will result in return to the
>>> caller without waiting in mbox_send_message even when it's blocking Tx.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the issue by waiting for the completion always if Tx
>>> is in blocking mode.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2b6d83e2b8b7 ("mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox")
>>> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
>>> Reported-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Hi Jassi,
>>>
>>> Here are fixes for few issues we encountered when dealing with multiple
>>> requests on multiple channels simultaneously.
>>>
>> Thanks for finding the bug.
>>
>> I see patch-1 tries to fix the bug.  Patch-2,3 try to fix the
>> ramifications of the bug but they may change behaviour for some users.
>> Do you face any issue even after applying patch-1 ?
>>
>
> Unfortunately yes. Are you concerned with the change in return value on
> timeout ? I understand and then I chose -ETIME vs -ETIMEDOUT as hardware
> can still use it and we can distinguish the software timer expiry from
> that. Even -EIO seems incorrect for s/w timeout as it exists today, but
> I agree it has some impact on existing users.
>
> Also Patch 3 seems independent for me just to avoid complete call if it
> was empty message.
>
> Alexey also brought up another issue which is relating to ordering and
> may require completion flags per message instead of per channel. Today
> we can't guarantee that first blocker on the wait queue is same as the
> first in the mailbox queue.
>
> e.g.:
>         Thread#1(T1)               Thread#2(T2)
>      mbox_send_message           mbox_send_message
>             |                           |
>             V                           |
>         add_to_rbuf(M1)                 V
>             |                     add_to_rbuf(M2)
>             |                           |
>             |                           V
>             V                      msg_submit(picks M1)
>         msg_submit                      |
>             |                           V
>             V                   wait_for_completion(on M2)
>      wait_for_completion(on M1)         |  (1st in waitQ)
>             |   (2nd in waitQ)          V
>             V                   wake_up(on completion of M1)<--incorrect
>
Yes, that is a possibility. I have sent a fix for this. It would help
if Alexey/you could give it a try.

Thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web