On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:25:37AM +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > >
> > > + if (ufshpb_mode == HPB_HOST_CONTROL)
> > > + reads = atomic64_inc_return(&rgn->reads);
> > > +
> > > if (!ufshpb_is_support_chunk(transfer_len))
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + if (ufshpb_mode == HPB_HOST_CONTROL) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * in host control mode, reads are the main source for
> > > + * activation trials.
> > > + */
> > > + if (reads == ACTIVATION_THRSHLD) {
> Oops - this is a bug...
>
> > > +
> > > + /* region reads - for host mode */
> > > + atomic64_t reads;
> >
> > Why do you need an atomic variable for this? What are you trying to
> > "protect" here by flushing the cpus all the time? What protects this
> > variable from changing right after you have read from it (hint, you do
> > that above...)
> >
> > atomics are not race-free, use a real lock if you need that.
> We are on the data path here - this is called from queuecommand.
> The "reads" counter is being symmetrically read and written,
> so adding a spin lock here might become a source for contention.
And an atomic varible is not? You do know what spinlocks are made of,
right? :)
> Also I am not worried about the exact value of this counter, except of one
> place -
> See above. Will fix it.
So it's not really needed?
thanks,
greg k-h
