Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: ngene: Replace semaphore cmd_mutex with mutex

[Binoy Jayan]

Hi Arnd,

On 9 June 2017 at 16:06, Arnd Bergmann  wrote:

>> Thank you for pointing out that. I'll check the
>> concurrency part. By the way why do we need mutex_destoy?
>> To debug an aberrate condition?
>
> At first I suspected the down() here was added for the same
> purpose as a mutex_destroy: to ensure that we are in a sane
> state before we free the device structure, but the way they
> achieve that is completely different.
>
> However, if there is any way that a command may still be in
> progress by the time we get to ngene_stop(), we may also
> be lacking reference counting on the ngene structure here.
> So far I haven't found any of those, and think the mutex_destroy()
> is sufficient here as a debugging help.

I've made the necessary changes. Thank you for reviewing all the patches.

Regards,
Binoy

Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: ngene: Replace semaphore cmd_mutex with mutex

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Binoy Jayan  wrote:
> On 8 June 2017 at 20:40, Arnd Bergmann  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Binoy Jayan  wrote:
>>> The semaphore 'cmd_mutex' is used as a simple mutex, so
>>> it should be written as one. Semaphores are going away in the future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan 
>>> ---
>>
>>> @@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ static int ngene_load_firm(struct ngene *dev)
>>>
>>>  static void ngene_stop(struct ngene *dev)
>>>  {
>>> -   down(>cmd_mutex);
>>> +   mutex_lock(>cmd_mutex);
>>> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[0].i2c_adapter));
>>> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[1].i2c_adapter));
>>> ngwritel(0, NGENE_INT_ENABLE);
>>
>> Are you sure about this one? There is only one mutex_lock() and
>> then the structure gets freed without a corresponding mutex_unlock().
>>
>> I suspect this violates some rules of mutexes, either when compile
>> testing with "make C=1", or when running with lockdep enabled.
>>
>> Can we actually have a concurrently held mutex at the time we
>> get here? If not, using mutex_destroy() in place of the down()
>> may be the right answer.
>
> I noticed the missing 'up' here, but may be semaphores do not have
> to adhere to that rule?

The rules for semaphores are very lax, the up() and down() may
be in completely separate contexts, the up() can even happen from
an interrupt handler IIRC.

I read up on the sparse annotations now and found that it only
tracks spinlocks and rwlocks using the __acquires() annotation,
but not semaphores or mutexes.

I'm still not sure whether lockdep requires the mutex to be released
before it gets freed, the code may actually be fine, but it does
seem odd.

> Thank you for pointing out that. I'll check the
> concurrency part. By the way why do we need mutex_destoy?
> To debug an aberrate condition?

At first I suspected the down() here was added for the same
purpose as a mutex_destroy: to ensure that we are in a sane
state before we free the device structure, but the way they
achieve that is completely different.

However, if there is any way that a command may still be in
progress by the time we get to ngene_stop(), we may also
be lacking reference counting on the ngene structure here.
So far I haven't found any of those, and think the mutex_destroy()
is sufficient here as a debugging help.

   Arnd

Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: ngene: Replace semaphore cmd_mutex with mutex

[Binoy Jayan]

On 8 June 2017 at 20:40, Arnd Bergmann  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Binoy Jayan  wrote:
>> The semaphore 'cmd_mutex' is used as a simple mutex, so
>> it should be written as one. Semaphores are going away in the future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan 
>> ---
>
>> @@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ static int ngene_load_firm(struct ngene *dev)
>>
>>  static void ngene_stop(struct ngene *dev)
>>  {
>> -   down(>cmd_mutex);
>> +   mutex_lock(>cmd_mutex);
>> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[0].i2c_adapter));
>> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[1].i2c_adapter));
>> ngwritel(0, NGENE_INT_ENABLE);
>
> Are you sure about this one? There is only one mutex_lock() and
> then the structure gets freed without a corresponding mutex_unlock().
>
> I suspect this violates some rules of mutexes, either when compile
> testing with "make C=1", or when running with lockdep enabled.
>
> Can we actually have a concurrently held mutex at the time we
> get here? If not, using mutex_destroy() in place of the down()
> may be the right answer.

I noticed the missing 'up' here, but may be semaphores do not have
to adhere to that rule? Thank you for pointing out that. I'll check the
concurrency part. By the way why do we need mutex_destoy?
To debug an aberrate condition?

Thanks,
Binoy

Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: ngene: Replace semaphore cmd_mutex with mutex

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Binoy Jayan  wrote:
> The semaphore 'cmd_mutex' is used as a simple mutex, so
> it should be written as one. Semaphores are going away in the future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan 
> ---

> @@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ static int ngene_load_firm(struct ngene *dev)
>
>  static void ngene_stop(struct ngene *dev)
>  {
> -   down(>cmd_mutex);
> +   mutex_lock(>cmd_mutex);
> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[0].i2c_adapter));
> i2c_del_adapter(&(dev->channel[1].i2c_adapter));
> ngwritel(0, NGENE_INT_ENABLE);

Are you sure about this one? There is only one mutex_lock() and
then the structure gets freed without a corresponding mutex_unlock().

I suspect this violates some rules of mutexes, either when compile
testing with "make C=1", or when running with lockdep enabled.

Can we actually have a concurrently held mutex at the time we
get here? If not, using mutex_destroy() in place of the down()
may be the right answer.

   Arnd