RE: [PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Fix conditional locking

[Madhusudhan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:16 AM
> To: Madhusudhan
> Cc: 'LKML'; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Fix conditional locking
> 
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Madhusudhan wrote:
> > > Conditional locking on (!in_interrupt()) is broken by design and there
> > > is no reason to keep the host->irq_lock across the call to
> > > mmc_request_done(). Also the host->protect_card magic hack does not
> > > depend on the context
> > >
> >
> > Can you please elaborate why the existing logic is broken?
> 
> Locks are only to be held to serialize data or state.
> 
> The mmc_request_done() call does _NOT_ require that at all. So
> dropping the lock there is the right thing to do.
> 
> Also conditional locking on in_interrupt() is generally a nono as it
> relies on assumptions which are not necessarily true in all
> circumstances. Just one simple example: interrupt threading will make
> it explode nicely and it did already with the realtime patches
> applied.
> 
> Such code constructs prevent us to do generic changes to the kernel
> behaviour without any real good reason.
> 
> > It locks at the new request and unlocks just before issuing the cmd.
> Further
> > IRQ handler has these calls hence the !in_interrupt check.
> 
> Aside of the conditional locking I have several issues with that code:
> 
> 1) The code flow is massively unreadable:
> 
>    omap_hsmmc_start_command()
>    {
> 	.....
> 	if (!in_interrupt())
> 	   spin_unlock_irq();
>    }
> 
>    omap_hsmmc_request()
>    {
> 	if (!in_interrupt())
> 	   spin_lock_irq();
> 
> 	omap_hsmmc_start_command();
>    }
> 
> We generally want to see the lock/unlock pairs in one function and not
> having to figure out where the heck unlock happens.
> 
> 2) The point of unlocking is patently wrong
> 
>    omap_hsmmc_start_command()
>    {
> 	.....
> 	if (!in_interrupt())
> 	   spin_unlock_irq();
> --->
> 	OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, ARG, cmd->arg);
> --->
>         OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, CMD, cmdreg);
>    }
> 
> What happens, if you get a spurious interrupt here ? Same for SMP,
> though you are probably protected by the core mmc code request
> serialization there.
> 
> > How does this patch improve that? In fact with your patch for a data
> > transfer cmd there are several lock-unlock calls.
> 
> 1) The patch simply removes conditional locking and moves the lock
>    sections to those places which protect something. Aside of that it
>    makes the code easier to understand.
> 
> 2) What's the point of not having those lock/unlocks ? On UP the
>    spinlock is a NOOP anyway, so you won't even notice. On SMP you
>    won't notice either, simply because the lock is cache hot and
>    almost never contended.
> 

Sounds reasonable.Readbility is still a factor but works for me as the main
intention here is to remove the in_interrupt conditional.

Acked-by: Madhusudhan Chikkature<madhu.cr@xxxxxx>

Best Regards,
Madhu


> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/