On 18 September 2013 05:52, Zhang Haijun <b42...@freescale.com> wrote:
>
> δΊ 2013/9/17 21:21, Ulf Hansson ει:
>
>> Hi Haijun,
>>
>> On 17 September 2013 11:03, Haijun Zhang <haijun.zh...@freescale.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> When card is in cpu polling mode to detect card present. Card detecting
>>> task will be scheduled about once every second. When card is busy in
>>> large
>>> file transfer, detecting task will be hang and call trace will be prompt.
>>> When handling the request, CMD13 is always followed by every command when
>>> it was complete. So assume that card is present to avoid this duplicate
>>> detecting. Only polling card when card is free to reduce conflict with
>>> data transfer.
>>>
>>> <7>mmc0: req done (CMD13): 0: 00000e00 00000000 00000000 00000000
>>> INFO: task kworker/u:1:12 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>> kworker/u:1 D 00000000 0 12 2 0x00000000
>>> Call Trace:
>>> [ee06dd50] [44042028] 0x44042028
>>> (unreliable)
>>> [ee06de10] [c0007a0c] __switch_to+0xa0/0xf0
>>> [ee06de30] [c04dd50c] __schedule+0x1f8/0x4a4
>>>
>>> [ee06dea0] [c04dd898] schedule+0x30/0xbc
>>>
>>> [ee06deb0] [c03816a4] __mmc_claim_host+0x98/0x19c
>>>
>>> [ee06df00] [c0385f88] mmc_sd_detect+0x38/0xc0
>>>
>>> [ee06df10] [c0382b0c] mmc_rescan+0x294/0x2e0
>>> [ee06df40] [c00661cc] process_one_work+0x140/0x3e0
>>>
>>> [ee06df70] [c0066bf8] worker_thread+0x18c/0x36c
>>> [ee06dfb0] [c006bf10] kthread+0x7c/0x80
>>>
>>> [ee06dff0] [c000de58] kernel_thread+0x4c/0x68
>>> <7>sdhci [sdhci_irq()]: *** mmc0 got interrupt: 0x00000001
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Haijun Zhang <haijun.zh...@freescale.com>
>>> ---
>>> changes for V2:
>>> - Add card detecting once the last request is done.
>>>
>>> drivers/mmc/card/block.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 5 +++++
>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 3 ++-
>>> drivers/mmc/core/sd.c | 3 ++-
>>> drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c | 3 ++-
>>> 5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>>> index 1a3163f..f280320 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>>> @@ -1960,9 +1960,20 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq,
>>> struct request *req)
>>> struct mmc_host *host = card->host;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>
>>> - if (req && !mq->mqrq_prev->req)
>>> + if (req && !mq->mqrq_prev->req) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * When we are here, card polling task will be blocked.
>>> + * So disable it to void this useless schedule.
>>
>> "avoid"
>
> :-)
>
>>> + */
>>> + if (host->caps & MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL) {
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>>> + host->rescan_disable = 1;
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>>
>> I believe you need to add "cancel_delayed_work_sync(&host->detect)" well!?
>>
>> Do note, that I am not confident sure that cancel_delayed_work_sync is
>> safe to run this from this context. What about the scenario were the
>
> When we are here the current task is still running,
> Invoke cancel_delayed_work_sync here will cause the task hang.
>
>> detect work is just about to remove a card then will be waiting for
>> the block queue to close, which then waits for the
>> cancel_delayed_work_sync to end. :-)
>
> Let me confirm whether I understand what you mean.
> You worried about the remove task is block by the block queue. This patch
> changed the priority of remove task?
> There several scenario here:
> a . schedule detect work( HZ )
> b . block work queue
> c . schedule detect work immediately ( 0 )
> d. detect remove task running
> 1. a->b->c->d
> 2. a->d->b->c->b->c->d
> 3. a->b->b->c->b->c->b->d
>
> So if step 'd' is really running is depend on the followed task 'b'.
>
> Or, I miss something else? Hope to make this clear.:-)
>
>>
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> /* claim host only for the first request */
>>> mmc_get_card(card);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> ret = mmc_blk_part_switch(card, md);
>>> if (ret) {
>>> @@ -1999,7 +2010,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq,
>>> struct request *req)
>>>
>>> out:
>>> if ((!req && !(mq->flags & MMC_QUEUE_NEW_REQUEST)) ||
>>> - (req && (req->cmd_flags & MMC_REQ_SPECIAL_MASK)))
>>> + (req && (req->cmd_flags & MMC_REQ_SPECIAL_MASK))) {
>>> /*
>>> * Release host when there are no more requests
>>> * and after special request(discard, flush) is done.
>>> @@ -2007,6 +2018,19 @@ out:
>>> * the 'mmc_blk_issue_rq' with 'mqrq_prev->req'.
>>> */
>>> mmc_put_card(card);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Detecting card status immediately in case card being
>>> + * removed just after the request is complete.
>>> + */
>>> + if (host->caps & MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL) {
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>>> + host->rescan_disable = 0;
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>>> + mmc_detect_change(host, 0);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> index b9b9fb6..2831c03 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> @@ -925,15 +925,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmc_claim_host);
>>> */
>>> int mmc_try_claim_host(struct mmc_host *host)
>>> {
>>> + struct mmc_card *card;
>>> int claimed_host = 0;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>
>>> + card = host->card;
>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(&card->dev);
>>
>> Nope, this wont work. pm_runtime_get_sync can trigger an
>> mmc_claim_host, thus this entire function is not "non-blocking" any
>> more.
>
> I missed this. so this check should be invoked before schedule detect work.
Not sure how you mean? It is the task executing the detect work that
need to be able to claim the host in a non-blocking manner, right?
>
>>
>> Could and option be to just do a best effort? Skipping the try_claim
>> entirely - maybe?
>
> You mean just to check the card status without hold the task? or rewrite
> another
> function like: non_block_claim_host?
I mean you can leave the code as is, before this patch, for
drivers/mmc/core/* and only rely on the fix you done in the
drivers/mmc/card/block.c. It wont be perfect but still better. :-)
That is what I thought of, unless we can fix this without breaking
something else.
Kind regards
Ulf Hansson
>
>>
>>> +
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>>> if (!host->claimed || host->claimer == current) {
>>> host->claimed = 1;
>>> host->claimer = current;
>>> host->claim_cnt += 1;
>>> claimed_host = 1;
>>> + set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>> }
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>>> if (host->ops->enable && claimed_host && host->claim_cnt == 1)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> index 6d02012..90e5555 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> @@ -1447,7 +1447,8 @@ static void mmc_detect(struct mmc_host *host)
>>> BUG_ON(!host);
>>> BUG_ON(!host->card);
>>>
>>> - mmc_get_card(host->card);
>>> + if (!mmc_try_claim_host(host))
>>> + return;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Just check if our card has been removed.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>> index 5e8823d..7dfb24d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>> @@ -1045,7 +1045,8 @@ static void mmc_sd_detect(struct mmc_host *host)
>>> BUG_ON(!host);
>>> BUG_ON(!host->card);
>>>
>>> - mmc_get_card(host->card);
>>> + if (!mmc_try_claim_host(host))
>>> + return;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Just check if our card has been removed.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
>>> index 80d89cff..e0cabf5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
>>> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static void mmc_sdio_detect(struct mmc_host *host)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - mmc_claim_host(host);
>>> + if (!mmc_try_claim_host(host))
>>> + return;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Just check if our card has been removed.
>>> --
>>> 1.8.0
>>>
>>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ulf Hansson
>>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Haijun.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
