| Message ID | 1704331491-115325-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section | expand |
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 <kwmad.kim@samsung.com> > --- > 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.
> > 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 I didn’t see it. Thank you for letting me know.
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);
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 <kwmad.kim@samsung.com> --- drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)