Seems like I did not submit the patch in the right way, before I setup
my mail correctly, attach the patches in the mail.
PATCH1:0001-Add-per-resource-mutex-for-OMAP-resource-framework.patch
>From b4e9cc01f9d1aaeec39cc1ee794e5efaec61c781 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:34:32 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Add per-resource mutex for OMAP resource framework
Current OMAP resource fwk uses a global res_mutex
for resource_request and resource_release calls
for all the available resources.It may cause dead
lock if resource_request/resource_release is called
recursively.
For current OMAP3 VDD1/VDD2 resource, the change_level
implementation is mach-omap2/resource34xx.c/set_opp(),
when using resource_release to remove vdd1 constraint,
this function may call resource_release again to release
Vdd2 constrait if target vdd1 level is less than OPP3.
in this scenario, the global res_mutex down operation
will be called again, this will cause the second
down operation hang there.
To fix the problem, per-resource mutex is added
to avoid hangup when resource_request/resource_release
is called recursively.
Signed-off-by: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
---
arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h | 2 ++
arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c | 27
+++++++++++++++------------
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
index f91d8ce..d482fb8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ struct shared_resource {
/* Shared resource operations */
struct shared_resource_ops *ops;
struct list_head node;
+ /* Protect each resource */
+ struct mutex resource_mutex;
};
struct shared_resource_ops {
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
index ec31727..5eae4e8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
@@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ int resource_register(struct shared_resource *resp)
return -EEXIST;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resp->users_list);
+ mutex_init(&resp->resource_mutex);
down(&res_mutex);
/* Add the resource to the resource list */
@@ -326,14 +327,14 @@ int resource_request(const char *name, struct
device *dev,
struct users_list *user;
int found = 0, ret = 0;
- down(&res_mutex);
- resp = _resource_lookup(name);
+ resp = resource_lookup(name);
if (!resp) {
printk(KERN_ERR "resource_request: Invalid resource
name\n");
ret = -EINVAL;
- goto res_unlock;
+ goto ret;
}
+ mutex_lock(&resp->resource_mutex);
/* Call the resource specific validate function */
if (resp->ops->validate_level) {
ret = resp->ops->validate_level(resp, level);
@@ -362,7 +363,7 @@ int resource_request(const char *name, struct device
*dev,
user->level = level;
res_unlock:
- up(&res_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&resp->resource_mutex);
/*
* Recompute and set the current level for the resource.
* NOTE: update_resource level moved out of spin_lock, as it may
call
@@ -371,6 +372,7 @@ res_unlock:
*/
if (!ret)
ret = update_resource_level(resp);
+ret:
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_request);
@@ -393,14 +395,14 @@ int resource_release(const char *name, struct
device *dev)
struct users_list *user;
int found = 0, ret = 0;
- down(&res_mutex);
- resp = _resource_lookup(name);
+ resp = resource_lookup(name);
if (!resp) {
printk(KERN_ERR "resource_release: Invalid resource
name\n");
ret = -EINVAL;
- goto res_unlock;
+ goto ret;
}
+ mutex_lock(&resp->resource_mutex);
list_for_each_entry(user, &resp->users_list, node) {
if (user->dev == dev) {
found = 1;
@@ -421,7 +423,9 @@ int resource_release(const char *name, struct device
*dev)
/* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
ret = update_resource_level(resp);
res_unlock:
- up(&res_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&resp->resource_mutex);
+
+ret:
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_release);
@@ -438,15 +442,14 @@ int resource_get_level(const char *name)
struct shared_resource *resp;
u32 ret;
- down(&res_mutex);
- resp = _resource_lookup(name);
+ resp = resource_lookup(name);
if (!resp) {
printk(KERN_ERR "resource_release: Invalid resource
name\n");
- up(&res_mutex);
return -EINVAL;
}
+ mutex_lock(&resp->resource_mutex);
ret = resp->curr_level;
- up(&res_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&resp->resource_mutex);
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_get_level);
--
1.5.4.3
PATCH2:0002-Move-the-resource-level-update-into-mutex_lock-block.patch
>From 9cc371b5d7f2e049fe72bc946dcb8ec8e1de826c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:43:13 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Move the resource level update into mutex_lock block.
The update_resource_level is called outside of
the mutex lock protection block due to an out of date
spin lock mechanism, now mutex is used, so move
the update_resource_level into mutex protection block.
Signed-off-by: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
---
arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c | 11 +++--------
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
index 5eae4e8..e2a003a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
@@ -362,16 +362,11 @@ int resource_request(const char *name, struct
device *dev,
}
user->level = level;
+ /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
+ ret = update_resource_level(resp);
+
res_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&resp->resource_mutex);
- /*
- * Recompute and set the current level for the resource.
- * NOTE: update_resource level moved out of spin_lock, as it may
call
- * pm_qos_add_requirement, which does a kzmalloc. This won't be
allowed
- * in iterrupt context. The spin_lock still protects add/remove
users.
- */
- if (!ret)
- ret = update_resource_level(resp);
ret:
return ret;
}
--
1.5.4.3
-----Original Message-----
From: Wang Limei-E12499
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 11:13 AM
To: 'khil...@deeprootsystems.com'
Cc: Wang Limei-E12499; Wang Sawsd-A24013
Subject: RE: Linux-omap PM: Fix dead lock condition in
resource_release(vdd1_opp)
Kevin,
Seems like I did not submit the patch in the recommended way,I will try
to be better in the future.
If you can review the patch and feedback, I will apperciate it.
Thanks,
Limei
-----Original Message-----
From: Wang Limei-E12499
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:44 PM
To: Kevin Hilman
Cc: Romit Dasgupta; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Wang Sawsd-A24013; Wang
Limei-E12499
Subject: RE: Linux-omap PM: Fix dead lock condition in
resource_release(vdd1_opp)
Kevin,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Chunqiu and I revised the patch. Pls see the attachment.
Thanks,
Limei,chunqiu
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khil...@deeprootsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:02 AM
To: Wang Limei-E12499
Cc: Romit Dasgupta; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Wang Sawsd-A24013
Subject: Re: Linux-omap PM: Fix dead lock condition in
resource_release(vdd1_opp)
"Wang Limei-E12499" <e12...@motorola.com> writes:
>
> Kevin and Romit,
>
> I agreed with you, thanks Kevin and Romit for the comments! Chunqiu
> Wang coded resource-based mutex, below is the patch. Pls review and
> let us know your feedback.
>
>
> From 31f87ffb8eb1f854a9adb7fd96011d490f4655fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:22:09 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix resource framework mutex lock issue when
> resource_get or resource_release are called nestedly.
>
Could use a shorter summary (subject) and a more detailed changelog.
This patch is doing too many things in a single patch without enough
explanation.
Not only does it convert the global semaphore to a resource-specific
semaphore, but it also changing the locking slightly by moving some
things in/out of lock protection. That should be described in the
changelog as well.
Even better would be a first patch that simply converts the semaphore to
a resource-specific *mutex* (not resource-specific semaphore.) IOW, use
mutex API in <linux/mutex.h>:
struct mutex;
init_mutex()
mutex_lock()
mutex_unlock()
mutex_is_lockec()
...
Then, add a 2nd patch which does any reworking of the critical sections.
Kevin
> Signed-off-by: Chunqiu Wang <cqw...@motorola.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h | 2 +
> arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c | 38
> +++++++++++++--------------
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
> b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
> index f91d8ce..389cb67 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/resource.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/semaphore.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <mach/cpu.h>
>
> @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@ struct shared_resource {
> /* Shared resource operations */
> struct shared_resource_ops *ops;
> struct list_head node;
> + struct semaphore resource_mutex;
> };
>
> struct shared_resource_ops {
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
> b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c index ec31727..758a138 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ int resource_register(struct shared_resource
*resp)
> return -EEXIST;
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resp->users_list);
> + sema_init(&resp->resource_mutex, 1);
>
> down(&res_mutex);
> /* Add the resource to the resource list */ @@ -326,14 +327,14
@@
> int resource_request(const char *name, struct device *dev,
> struct users_list *user;
> int found = 0, ret = 0;
>
> - down(&res_mutex);
> - resp = _resource_lookup(name);
> + resp = resource_lookup(name);
> if (!resp) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "resource_request: Invalid resource
name\n");
> ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto res_unlock;
> + goto ret;
> }
>
> + down(&resp->resource_mutex);
> /* Call the resource specific validate function */
> if (resp->ops->validate_level) {
> ret = resp->ops->validate_level(resp, level); @@ -361,16
+362,12 @@
> int resource_request(const char *name, struct device *dev,
> }
> user->level = level;
>
> + /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
> + ret = update_resource_level(resp);
> res_unlock:
> - up(&res_mutex);
> - /*
> - * Recompute and set the current level for the resource.
> - * NOTE: update_resource level moved out of spin_lock, as it may
> call
> - * pm_qos_add_requirement, which does a kzmalloc. This won't be
> allowed
> - * in iterrupt context. The spin_lock still protects add/remove
> users.
> - */
> - if (!ret)
> - ret = update_resource_level(resp);
> + up(&resp->resource_mutex);
> +
> +ret:
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_request);
> @@ -393,14 +390,14 @@ int resource_release(const char *name, struct
> device *dev)
> struct users_list *user;
> int found = 0, ret = 0;
>
> - down(&res_mutex);
> - resp = _resource_lookup(name);
> + resp = resource_lookup(name);
> if (!resp) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "resource_release: Invalid resource
name\n");
> ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto res_unlock;
> + goto ret;
> }
>
> + down(&resp->resource_mutex);
> list_for_each_entry(user, &resp->users_list, node) {
> if (user->dev == dev) {
> found = 1;
> @@ -421,7 +418,9 @@ int resource_release(const char *name, struct
> device
> *dev)
> /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
> ret = update_resource_level(resp);
> res_unlock:
> - up(&res_mutex);
> + up(&resp->resource_mutex);
> +
> +ret:
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_release);
> @@ -438,15 +437,14 @@ int resource_get_level(const char *name)
> struct shared_resource *resp;
> u32 ret;
>
> - down(&res_mutex);
> - resp = _resource_lookup(name);
> + resp = resource_lookup(name);
> if (!resp) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "resource_release: Invalid resource
name\n");
> - up(&res_mutex);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> + down(&resp->resource_mutex);
> ret = resp->curr_level;
> - up(&res_mutex);
> + up(&resp->resource_mutex);
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_get_level);
> --
> 1.5.4.3
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khil...@deeprootsystems.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: Wang Limei-E12499
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Linux-omap PM: Fix dead lock condition in
> resource_release(vdd1_opp)
>
> "Wang Limei-E12499" <e12...@motorola.com> writes:
>
>> I am using linux-omap pm-2.6.29
>> <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-omap-pm.git;
>> a =s hortlog;h=pm-2.6.29> branch,found a dead lock condition in:
>> arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c->resource_release().
>>
>> The dead lock happens when using
>> resource_request("vdd1_opp",&dev,...)
>> and resource_release("vdd1_opp", &dev) to set and release vdd1 opp
>> constraint. The scenario is:
>>
>> plat-omap/resource.c/resource_release("vdd1_opp",
>> &dev)==>resource.c/update_resource_level()=>mach-omap2/resource34xx.c
>> / se t_opp(). In set_opp(), if the target_level of vdd1 is less
>> than OPP3,will release the constraint set on VDD2 by calling
>> resource_release(), but it will never return because can not get the
>> mutex which is holding by the previous caller.
>>
>> int resource_release(const char *name, struct device *dev)
>> { .......
>> down(&res_mutex);
>> ........
>> /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
>> ret = update_resource_level(resp);
>> res_unlock:
>> up(&res_mutex);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> int set_opp(struct shared_resource *resp, u32 target_level) {
>> .....
>> if (resp == vdd1_resp) {
>> if (target_level < 3)
>> resource_release("vdd2_opp", &vdd2_dev); }
>>
>> The patch to fix this issue is below, will you pls review it and let
>> me know your feedback?
>>
>> From: Limei Wang <e12...@motorola.com>
>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:40:35 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] OMAP PM: Fix dead lock bug in
>> resourc_release(vdd1_opp).
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Limei Wang <e12...@motorola.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
>> b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c index ec31727..876fd12 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/resource.c
>> @@ -418,10 +418,12 @@ int resource_release(const char *name, struct
>> device *dev)
>> list_del(&user->node);
>> free_user(user);
>>
>> - /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
>> - ret = update_resource_level(resp);
>> res_unlock:
>> up(&res_mutex);
>> +
>> + /* Recompute and set the current level for the resource */
>> + if (!ret)
>> + ret = update_resource_level(resp);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(resource_release);
>> --
>> 1.5.6.3
>
> This is wrong for several reasons.
>
> First, you're not fixing the problem, you're just moving the call
> outside of the lock, thus creating other locking problems.
>
> Second, the various error paths would break because
> update_resource_level() would be called on the 'res_unlock' error path
> where it is not currently being called.
>
> A per-resource mutex as suggest by Romit seems like the right approach
> to fixing this problem.
>
> Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
