[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef0d576f4eba266b60586b93c6ace79ed3cc7096.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:37:58 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dylan Hung <dylan_hung@...eedtech.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ftgmac100: Ensure tx descriptor updates are visible
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 08:18 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > Sent: 21 October 2020 01:00
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 08:36 +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > > We must ensure the tx descriptor updates are visible before updating
> > > the tx pointer.
> > >
> > > This resolves the tx hangs observed on the 2600 when running iperf:
> >
> > To clarify the comment here. This doesn't ensure they are visible to
> > the hardware but to other CPUs. This is the ordering vs start_xmit and
> > tx_complete.
>
> You need two barriers.
> 1) after making the data buffers available before transferring
> the descriptor ownership to the device.
> 2) after transferring the ownership before 'kicking' the mac engine.
>
> The first is needed because the mac engine can poll the descriptors
> at any time (eg on completing the previous transmit).
> This stops it transmitting garbage.
>
> The second makes sure it finds the descriptor you've just set.
> This stops delays before sending the packet.
> (But it will get sent later.)
The above is unrelated to this patch. This isn't about fixing any
device <-> CPU ordering or interaction but purely about ensuring proper
ordering between start_xmit and tx packet cleanup. IE. We are looking
at two different issues with this driver.
> For (2) dma_wmb() is the documented barrier.
>
> I'm not sure which barrier you need for (1).
> smp_wmb() would be right if the reader were another cpu,
> but it is (at most) a compile barrier on UP kernels.
> So you need something stronger than smp_wmb().
There should already be sufficient barriers for that in the driver
(except for the HW bug mentioned earlier).
> On a TSO system (which yours probably is) a compile barrier
> is probably sufficient, but if memory writes can get re-ordered
> it needs to be a stronger barrier - but not necessarily as strong
> as dma_wmb().
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists