Re: [PATCH v2] clk: Fix race condition between clk_set_parent andclk_enable()

[Saravana Kannan]

On 05/16/2013 01:44 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2013-05-15 21:07:24)
> > Without this patch, the following race condition is possible.
> > * clk-A has two parents - clk-X and clk-Y.
> > * All three are disabled and clk-X is current parent.
> > * Thread A: clk_set_parent(clk-A, clk-Y).
> > * Thread A: <snip execution flow>
> > * Thread A: Grabs enable lock.
> > * Thread A: Sees enable count of clk-A is 0, so doesn't enable clk-Y.
> > * Thread A: Updates clk-A SW parent to clk-Y
> > * Thread A: Releases enable lock.
> > * Thread B: clk_enable(clk-A).
> > * Thread B: clk_enable() enables clk-Y, then enabled clk-A and returns.
> >
> > clk-A is now enabled in software, but not clocking in hardware since the
> > hardware parent is still clk-X.
> >
> > The only way to avoid race conditions between clk_set_parent() and
> > clk_enable/disable() is to ensure that clk_enable/disable() calls don't
> > require changes to hardware enable state between changes to software clock
> > topology and hardware clock topology.
> >
> > The options to achieve the above are:
> > 1. Grab the enable lock before changing software/hardware topology and
> >     release it afterwards.
> > 2. Keep the clock enabled for the duration of software/hardware topology
> >     change so that any additional enable/disable calls don't try to change
> >     the hardware state. Once the topology change is complete, the clock can
> >     be put back in its original enable state.
> >
> > Option (1) is not an acceptable solution since the set_parent() ops might
> > need to sleep.
> >
> > Therefore, this patch implements option (2).
> >
> > This patch doesn't violate any API semantics. clk_disable() doesn't
> > guarantee that the clock is actually disabled. So, no clients of a clock
> > can assume that a clock is disabled after their last call to clk_disable().
> > So, enabling the clock during a parent change is not a violation of any API
> > semantics.
> >
> > This also has the nice side effect of simplifying the error handling code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Updated to this version in clk-next.

Thanks Mike. I forgot to add the Ack by Ulf. Would be nice if you can 
put that in.

Btw, I did send this email to the list. But looks like this mail is 
wedged in the series of tubes in the arm mailing list.

-Saravana


--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/