[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebc4e7af-8300-307c-9278-25fdd6bf1e65@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:56:40 -0500
From: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
evgreen@...omium.org, cpratapa@...eaurora.org,
subashab@...eaurora.org, elder@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] net: ipa: ensure hardware has power in
ipa_start_xmit()
On 8/16/21 9:20 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 8/16/21 9:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:25:23 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
>>>> This is racy, what if the pm work gets scheduled on another CPU and
>>>> calls wake right here (i.e. before you call netif_stop_queue())?
>>>> The queue may never get woken up?
>>>
>>> I haven't been seeing this happen but I think you may be right.
>>>
>>> I did think about this race, but I think I was relying on the
>>> PM work queue to somehow avoid the problem. I need to think
>>> about this again after a good night's sleep. I might need
>>> to add an atomic flag or something.
>>
>> Maybe add a spin lock? Seems like the whole wake up path will be
>> expensive enough for a spin lock to be in the noise. You can always
>> add complexity later.
>
> Exactly what I just decided after trying to work out a
> clever way without using a spinlock... I'll be sending
> out a fix today. Thanks.
I'm finding this isn't an easy problem to solve (or even think
about). While I ponder the best course of action I'm going
to send out another series (i.e., *before* I send a fix for
this issue) because I'd like to get everything I have out
for review this week. I *will* address this potential race
one way or another, possibly later today.
-Alex
>
> -Alex
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists