linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] net: ocelot: fix wrong time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220523160004.6d285609@fixe.home>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 16:00:04 +0200
From:   Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ocelot: fix wrong time_after usage

Le Sat, 21 May 2022 16:21:09 +0000,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> a écrit :

> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 03:55:30PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:31:15AM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:  
> > > Accidentally noticed, that this driver is the only user of
> > > while (time_after(jiffies...)).
> > > 
> > > It looks like typo, because likely this while loop will finish after 1st
> > > iteration, because time_after() returns true when 1st argument _is after_
> > > 2nd one.
> > > 
> > > There is one possible problem with this poll loop: the scheduler could put
> > > the thread to sleep, and it does not get woken up for
> > > OCELOT_FDMA_CH_SAFE_TIMEOUT_US. During that time, the hardware has done
> > > its thing, but you exit the while loop and return -ETIMEDOUT.
> > > 
> > > Fix it by using sane poll API that avoids all problems described above
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 753a026cfec1 ("net: ocelot: add FDMA support")
> > > Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > I can't say if 0 is a good choise for 5th readx_poll_timeout() argument,
> > > so this patch is build-tested only.  
> >   
> > > Testing and suggestions are welcomed!  
> > 
> > If you had the hardware, i would suggest you profile how often it does
> > complete on the first iteration. And when it does not complete on the
> > first iteration, how many more iterations it needs.
> > 
> > Tobias made an interesting observation with the mv88e6xxx switch. He
> > found that two tight polls was enough 99% of the time. Putting a sleep
> > in there doubles the time it took to setup the switch. So he ended up
> > with a hybrid of open coded polling twice, followed by iopoll with a
> > timer value set.
> > 
> > That was with a heavily used poll function. How often is this function
> > used? No point in overly optimising this if it is not used much.  
> 
> If you're looking at me, I don't have the hardware to test, sorry.
> Frame DMA is one of the components NXP removed when building their DSA
> variants of these switches. But the function is called once or twice per
> NAPI poll cycle, so it's worth optimizing as much as possible.
> 
> Clement, could you please do some testing? The patch that Andrew is
> talking about is 35da1dfd9484 ("net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Improve performance
> of busy bit polling").

Ok, I'll have to wake up that ocelot board but I'll try to do
that.

-- 
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com