Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] clk: Remove recursion in clk_core_{prepare,enable}()

[dbasehore .]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:49 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Derek Basehore (2019-03-04 20:49:31)
> > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Enabling and preparing clocks can be written quite naturally with
> > recursion. We start at some point in the tree and recurse up the
> > tree to find the oldest parent clk that needs to be enabled or
> > prepared. Then we enable/prepare and return to the caller, going
> > back to the clk we started at and enabling/preparing along the
> > way. This also unroll the recursion in unprepare,disable which can
> > just be done in the order of walking up the clk tree.
> >
> > The problem is recursion isn't great for kernel code where we
> > have a limited stack size. Furthermore, we may be calling this
> > code inside clk_set_rate() which also has recursion in it, so
> > we're really not looking good if we encounter a tall clk tree.
> >
> > Let's create a stack instead by looping over the parent chain and
> > collecting clks of interest. Then the enable/prepare becomes as
> > simple as iterating over that list and calling enable.
> >
> > Modified verison of https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/814369/
> > -Fixed kernel warning
> > -unrolled recursion in unprepare/disable too
> >
> > Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Derek Basehore <dbasehore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> From the original post:
>
> "I have some vague fear that this may not work if a clk op is framework
> reentrant and attemps to call consumer clk APIs from within the clk ops.
> If the reentrant call tries to add a clk that's already in the list then
> we'll corrupt the list. Ugh."
>
> Do we have this sort of problem here? Or are you certain that we don't
> have clks that prepare or enable something that is already in the
> process of being prepared or enabled?

I can look into whether anything's doing this and add a WARN_ON which
returns an error if we ever hit that case. If this is happening on
some platform, we'd want to correct that anyways.

>