[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241030093924.1251343-11-wei.fang@nxp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:39:21 +0800
From: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
To: davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org,
vladimir.oltean@....com,
claudiu.manoil@....com,
xiaoning.wang@....com,
Frank.Li@....com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
linux@...linux.org.uk,
horms@...nel.org
Cc: imx@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
alexander.stein@...tq-group.com
Subject: [PATCH v6 net-next 10/12] net: enetc: optimize the allocation of tx_bdr
From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by bdr_int_num.
For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num is 3. According to the
previous logic, this results in two tx_bdr corresponding memories not
being allocated, so when sending packets to tx ring 6 or 7, wild pointers
will be accessed. Of course, this issue doesn't exist on LS1028A, because
its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1 or 2. However, there
is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that each tx_bdr can be allocated to the corresponding memory.
Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Reviewed-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
---
v6: only add a opening comment in the code
---
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
index f292c5ef27b7..89d919c713df 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
@@ -3084,10 +3084,10 @@ static void enetc_int_vector_destroy(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv, int i)
int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
{
struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->si->pdev;
+ int v_tx_rings, v_remainder;
int num_stack_tx_queues;
int first_xdp_tx_ring;
int i, n, err, nvec;
- int v_tx_rings;
nvec = ENETC_BDR_INT_BASE_IDX + priv->bdr_int_num;
/* allocate MSIX for both messaging and Rx/Tx interrupts */
@@ -3101,9 +3101,15 @@ int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
/* # of tx rings per int vector */
v_tx_rings = priv->num_tx_rings / priv->bdr_int_num;
+ v_remainder = priv->num_tx_rings % priv->bdr_int_num;
for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++) {
- err = enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, v_tx_rings);
+ /* Distribute the remaining TX rings to the first v_remainder
+ * interrupt vectors
+ */
+ int num_tx_rings = i < v_remainder ? v_tx_rings + 1 : v_tx_rings;
+
+ err = enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, num_tx_rings);
if (err)
goto fail;
}
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists