On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:10:43AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 03:03:48 Weongyo Jeong wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:09:49PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > > On Sunday 31 October 2010 01:19:01 Weongyo Jeong wrote:
> > > > Hello USB guys,
> > > 
> > > 1) All the sleepout_xxx() functions need mutex asserts.
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > It looks it don't need it because callout(9) does it instead of sleepout
> > routines.  Moreover sleepout don't create any mutexes in itself.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 
> > > 2) Is it allowed to call callout_stop() / callout_reset() unlocked at
> > > all?
> > 
> > Yes as long as it doesn't have side effects.  It seems no drivers hold a
> > lock to call callout_stop() / callout_reset().
> 
> All USB drivers do to ensure state coherency.
> 
> > 
> > > What are the concequences if the mutex associated with the sleepout is
> > > NULL ?
> > 
> > I added KASSERT macro to check this case at below.  However the sleepout
> > pointer normally never be NULL because the intention of usage was as
> > follows:
> > 
> >   struct <driver>_softc {
> >           struct sleepout sleepout;
> >           struct sleepout_task sleepout_task;
> >   };
> > 
> >   sleepout_create(&sc->sleepout, "blah");
> > 
> > Only it could be happen if `struct sleepout' is allocated by
> > dynamically though it's not my first purpose.
> > 
> > > 3) As per the current implementation it can happen that the task'ed
> > > timeout is called after that sleepout_stop() is used. The code should
> > > have a check in the task function to see if the sleepout() has been
> > > cancelled or not, when the mutex associated with the sleepout is locked.
> > 
> > Yes it's true but it'd better to implement first taskqueue_stop() than
> > adding it sleepout routines directly.  However no plans yet because I
> > couldn't imagine a side effect due to lack of this feature.  Please let
> > me know if I missed the something important.
> 
> Maybe not when you are implementing a watchdog timer for ethernet, but then 
> you are limiting the use of those functions to USB ethernet only. The problem 
> happens when you are updating a state-machine in the callback and cannot 
> trust 
> that a stop cancelled the sleepout. All existing USB functions are written 
> this way. I.E. no completion done callback after usbd_transfer_stop().
> 
> For example if your watchdog is calling if_start() somehow, and then you do 
> an 
> if_down() which stops the watchdog, and then you can end up triggering the 
> if_start() after if_down(), which is incorrect.

OK that it makes sense to me.  I'll try to make a patch, taskqueue_stop().

> > > 4) Should the functions be prefixed by usb_ ?
> > 
> > I don't have a preference for this.  I think it's no problem to change
> > it.  It could happen soon.
> > 
> > > 5) In drain you should drain the callout first, then drain the tasqueue.
> > > Else the timer can trigger after the taskqueue is drained.
> 
> Have you considered using the USB sub-systems taskqueue, instead of the 
> kernel 
> one, so that jobs can be serialised among the two? Else you end up 
> introducing 
> SX-locks in all drivers? Is that on purpose?

As mentioned at the previous email.  I prefer to use SX lock than
taskqueue.  Please refer my email which sent just minutes ago.

> > It's fixed.  Thank you for your review and the updated version is
> > embedded at this email.

regards,
Weongyo Jeong

_______________________________________________
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to