[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240612140935.54981c49@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:09:35 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
Cc: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, Jesse Brandeburg
<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard
Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Maciej
Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<magnus.karlsson@...el.com>, Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/3] ice: fix synchronization between .ndo_bpf()
and reset
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:56:38 +0200 Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 07:38:37PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:37:12 +0200 Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > Fix the problems that are triggered by tx_timeout and ice_xdp() calls,
> > > including both pool and program operations.
> >
> > Is there really no way for ice to fix the locking? :(
> > The busy loops and trylocks() are not great, and seem like duct tape.
>
> The locking mechanisms I use here do not look pretty, but if I am not missing
> anything, the synchronization they provide must be robust.
Robust as in they may be correct here, but you lose lockdep and all
other infra normal mutex would give you.
> A prettier way of protecting the same critical sections would be replacing
> ICE_CFG_BUSY around ice_vsi_rebuild() with rtnl_lock(), this would eliminate
> locking code from .ndo_bpf() altogether, ice_rebuild_pending() logic will have
> to stay.
>
> At some point I have decided to avoid using rtnl_lock(), if I do not have to. I
> think this is a goal worth pursuing?
Is the reset for failure recovery, rather than reconfiguration?
If so netif_device_detach() is generally the best way of avoiding
getting called (I think I mentioned it to someone @intal recently).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists