[RFC PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown

Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
accesses.

To fix this kind of issues, specifically quiesce all SCSI devices
before UFS shutdown to block all I/O request sending from block
layer.

Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended

Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
           ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
           e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)

This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
concurrently and thus some unexpected racing behavior may happen.

Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <redacted>
---
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index 59358bb75014..cadfa9006972 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c

@@ -8599,10 +8599,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
 int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
+	struct scsi_target *starget;
 
 	if (!hba->is_powered)
 		goto out;
 
+	list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
+		scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
+
 	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
 		goto out;
 

-- 
2.18.0
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

On 2020-07-01 18:32, Stanley Chu wrote:

Please add a comment above the list_for_each_entry() loop that explains
that there is no matching scsi_target_unquiesce() call and also that
SCSI commands queued after the scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will
block until blk_cleanup_queue() is called (see also the blk_queue_dying()
check in blk_queue_enter()).

Thanks,

Bart.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Hi Bart,

On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 20:02 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:

On 2020-07-01 18:32, Stanley Chu wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index 59358bb75014..cadfa9006972 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c

@@ -8599,10 +8599,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
 int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
+	struct scsi_target *starget;
 
 	if (!hba->is_powered)
 		goto out;
 
+	list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings)
+		scsi_target_quiesce(starget);
+
 	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
 		goto out;

Please add a comment above the list_for_each_entry() loop that explains
that there is no matching scsi_target_unquiesce() call and also that
SCSI commands queued after the scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will
block until blk_cleanup_queue() is called (see also the blk_queue_dying()
check in blk_queue_enter()).

Thanks for the review.
I'll add above comments in RFC v2.

Thanks,
Stanley Chu

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel