Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:29:12 +0000
From:   Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        opendmb@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read/writes to
 assure ordering

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 3:57 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/10/2022 5:09 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > On 3/10/22 12:59, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> On 3/9/22 8:53 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >>> GCC12 appears to be much smarter about its dependency tracking and is
> >>> aware that the relaxed variants are just normal loads and stores and
> >>> this is causing problems like:
> >>>
> >>> [  210.074549] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >>> [  210.079223] NETDEV WATCHDOG: enabcm6e4ei0 (bcmgenet): transmit
> >>> queue 1 timed out
> >>> [  210.086717] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net/sched/sch_generic.c:529
> >>> dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> >>> [  210.095044] Modules linked in: genet(E) nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4
> >>> nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6
> >>> nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat]
> >>> [  210.146561] ACPI CPPC: PCC check channel failed for ss: 0. ret=-110
> >>> [  210.146927] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G
> >>> E     5.17.0-rc7G12+ #58
> >>> [  210.153226] CPPC Cpufreq:cppc_scale_freq_workfn: failed to read
> >>> perf counters
> >>> [  210.161349] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi Foundation Raspberry Pi 4
> >>> Model B/Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, BIOS EDK2-DEV 02/08/2022
> >>> [  210.161353] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS
> >>> BTYPE=--)
> >>> [  210.161358] pc : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> >>> [  210.161364] lr : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> >>> [  210.161368] sp : ffff8000080a3a40
> >>> [  210.161370] x29: ffff8000080a3a40 x28: ffffcd425af87000 x27:
> >>> ffff8000080a3b20
> >>> [  210.205150] x26: ffffcd425aa00000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24:
> >>> ffffcd425af8ec08
> >>> [  210.212321] x23: 0000000000000100 x22: ffffcd425af87000 x21:
> >>> ffff55b142688000
> >>> [  210.219491] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff55b1426884c8 x18:
> >>> ffffffffffffffff
> >>> [  210.226661] x17: 64656d6974203120 x16: 0000000000000001 x15:
> >>> 6d736e617274203a
> >>> [  210.233831] x14: 2974656e65676d63 x13: ffffcd4259c300d8 x12:
> >>> ffffcd425b07d5f0
> >>> [  210.241001] x11: 00000000ffffffff x10: ffffcd425b07d5f0 x9 :
> >>> ffffcd4258bdad9c
> >>> [  210.248171] x8 : 00000000ffffdfff x7 : 000000000000003f x6 :
> >>> 0000000000000000
> >>> [  210.255341] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 :
> >>> 0000000000001000
> >>> [  210.262511] x2 : 0000000000001000 x1 : 0000000000000005 x0 :
> >>> 0000000000000044
> >>> [  210.269682] Call trace:
> >>> [  210.272133]  dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> >>> [  210.275811]  call_timer_fn+0x3c/0x15c
> >>> [  210.279489]  __run_timers.part.0+0x288/0x310
> >>> [  210.283777]  run_timer_softirq+0x48/0x80
> >>> [  210.287716]  __do_softirq+0x128/0x360
> >>> [  210.291392]  __irq_exit_rcu+0x138/0x140
> >>> [  210.295243]  irq_exit_rcu+0x1c/0x30
> >>> [  210.298745]  el1_interrupt+0x38/0x54
> >>> [  210.302334]  el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24
> >>> [  210.306445]  el1h_64_irq+0x7c/0x80
> >>> [  210.309857]  arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x2c
> >>> [  210.313445]  default_idle_call+0x4c/0x140
> >>> [  210.317470]  cpuidle_idle_call+0x14c/0x1a0
> >>> [  210.321584]  do_idle+0xb0/0x100
> >>> [  210.324737]  cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x8c
> >>> [  210.328675]  secondary_start_kernel+0xe4/0x110
> >>> [  210.333138]  __secondary_switched+0x94/0x98
> >>>
> >>> The assumption when these were relaxed seems to be that device memory
> >>> would be mapped non reordering, and that other constructs
> >>> (spinlocks/etc) would provide the barriers to assure that packet data
> >>> and in memory rings/queues were ordered with respect to device
> >>> register reads/writes. This itself seems a bit sketchy, but the real
> >>> problem with GCC12 is that it is moving the actual reads/writes around
> >>> at will as though they were independent operations when in truth they
> >>> are not, but the compiler can't know that. When looking at the
> >>> assembly dumps for many of these routines its possible to see very
> >>> clean, but not strictly in program order operations occurring as the
> >>> compiler would be free to do if these weren't actually register
> >>> reads/write operations.
> >>>
> >>> Its possible to suppress the timeout with a liberal bit of dma_mb()'s
> >>> sprinkled around but the device still seems unable to reliably
> >>> send/receive data. A better plan is to use the safer readl/writel
> >>> everywhere.
> >>>
> >>> Since this partially reverts an older commit, which notes the use of
> >>> the relaxed variants for performance reasons. I would suggest that
> >>> any performance problems with this commit are targeted at relaxing only
> >>> the performance critical code paths after assuring proper barriers.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 69d2ea9c79898 ("net: bcmgenet: Use correct I/O accessors")
> >>> Reported-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
> >>
> >> I think this is the correct approach in that it favors correctness over
> >> speed, however there is an opportunity for maintaining the speed and
> >> correctness on non-2711 and non-7712 chips where the GENET core is
> >> interfaced to a system bus (GISB) that guarantees no re-ordering and no
> >> buffering. I suppose that until we prove that the extra barrier is
> >> harmful to performance on those chips, we should go with your patch.
> >>
> >> It seems like we missed the GENET_IO_MACRO() in bcmgenet.h, while most
> >> of them deal with the control path which likely does not have any
> >> re-ordering problem, there is an exception to that which are the
> >> intrl2_0 and intrl2_1 macros, which I believe *have* to be ordered as
> >> well in order to avoid spurious or missed interrupts, or maybe there is
> >> enough barriers in the interrupt processing code that this is moot?
> >
> >
> > Ok, so I spent some time and tracked down exactly which barrier "fixes"
> > this immediate problem on the rpi4.
> >
> > static void bcmgenet_enable_dma(struct bcmgenet_priv *priv, u32 dma_ctrl)
> >   {
> >          u32 reg;
> >
> > +       dma_mb(); //timeout fix
> >          reg = bcmgenet_rdma_readl(priv, DMA_CTRL);
> >          reg |= dma_ctrl;
> >
> >
> > fixes it as well, and keeps all the existing code. Although, granted I
> > didn't stress the adapter beyond a couple interactive ssh sessions. And
> > as you mention there are a fair number of other accessors that I didn't
> > touch which are still relaxed.
>
> Thanks! This is really helpful. Doug told me earlier today that he
> wanted to take a closer look since your initial approach while correct
> appears a bit heavy handed.

With 5.17 due in a couple of days could we get a fix in so it works
for users and optimise the approach with a follow up so that it's not
broken for common device?

Peter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists