Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Add dwc3 lock for blocking interrupt storming

[Thinh Nguyen]

정재훈 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thinh Nguyen [mailto:Thinh.Nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 10:57 AM
>> To: 정재훈; Thinh Nguyen; 'Felipe Balbi'; 'Greg Kroah-Hartman'
>> Cc: 'open list:USB XHCI DRIVER'; 'open list'; 'Seungchull Suh'; 'Daehwan
>> Jung'; cpgs@xxxxxxxxxxx; cpgsproxy5@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Add dwc3 lock for blocking interrupt
>> storming
>>
>> 정재훈 wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Thinh Nguyen [mailto:Thinh.Nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:14 AM
>>>> To: JaeHun Jung; Felipe Balbi; Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>>> Cc: open list:USB XHCI DRIVER; open list; Seungchull Suh; Daehwan
>>>> Jung
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Add dwc3 lock for blocking interrupt
>>>> storming
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> JaeHun Jung wrote:
>>>>> Interrupt Storming occurred with a very low probability of occurrence.
>>>>> The occurrence of the problem is estimated to be caused by a race
>>>>> condition between the top half and bottom half of the interrupt
>>>>> service
>>>> routine.
>>>>> It was confirmed that variables have values that cannot be held when
>>>>> ISR occurs through normal H / W irq.
>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>> = (struct dwc3_event_buffer *) ev_buf = 0xFFFFFF88DE6A0380 (
>>>>> 	(void *) buf = 0xFFFFFFC01594E000,
>>>>> 	(void *) cache = 0xFFFFFF88DDC14080,
>>>>> 	(unsigned int) length = 4096,
>>>>> 	(unsigned int) lpos = 0,
>>>>> 	(unsigned int) count = 0, <<
>>>>> 	(unsigned int) flags = 1, <<
>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>> = "evt->count=0" and "evt->flags=DWC3_EVENT_PENDING" cannot be set
>>>>> at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> We estimate that a race condition occurred between dwc3_interrupt()
>>>>> and dwc3_process_event_buf() called by
>>>>> dwc3_gadget_process_pending_events().
>>>>> So I try to block the race condition through spin_lock.
>>>>
>>>> This looks like it needs a memory barrier. Would this work for you?
>>> Maybe it could be. But "evt->count = 0;" is updated on
>> dwc3_process_event_buf().
>>> So, I think spin_lock is more clear routine for this issue.
>>>
>>
>> Not really. If problem is due to the evt->flags not updated in time, then
>> the solution should be using the memory barrier. The spin_lock would
>> obfuscate the issue. And we should avoid using spin_lock in the top-half.
> 
> This issue was occurred by watchdog. The interrupt occurred in units of 4 to 5us and cannot be released until the bottom is executed.
> If it is a problem with the memory barrier, the value should be updated after a few clocks and the TOP should run normally. Isn't it?

Can you guarantee that a value is stored after X amount of time, every time?

> And Could you explain me why we should avoid using spin_lock in the top-half.
> 

The top-half and bottom-half are serialized. While the bottom-half
handler is running, the interrupt should be masked. If the top-half got
called in the middle of the bottom-half handler, something else is
wrong. There should not be a race that requires a spin_lock for this
particular critical section.

The problem you're seeing is pointing toward a memory barrier issue.

Also you noted that there's an "interrupt storm", which doesn't indicate
to me that it's due to PCIe legacy interrupt de-assertion delay response
either.

Can you test it out and we can take a look further?

BR,
Thinh