[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1394986621.9668.31.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:17:01 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ben@...adent.org.uk,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mpm@...enic.com,
satyam.sharma@...il.com, Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>
Subject: Re: mlx4 netpoll and rx/tx weirdness
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 13:01 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Given this comment I have to ask: How insane is the mellanox mlx4
> driver that has separate rx and tx queues, separate rx and tx interrupts
> and uses separate napi bottom halves to process each, and honors the
> budget passed into it's rx napi handler.
I believe this driver had TX completion from hard irq, and NAPI polling
for RX.
This was changed quite recently to also do TX completion from softirq
handler.
>
> Right now the mlx4 code disables interrupts and calls napi_synchronize
> in it's netpoll routine instead of just scheduling the napi bottom
> halves as all of the sane drivers do. napi_synchronize trying to sleep
> in hard irq context is pretty terrible, but I can see roughly how that
> should be fixed.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c
> index fa5ee719e04b..2e6fded14e60 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c
> @@ -1302,16 +1302,10 @@ out:
> static void mlx4_en_netpoll(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> struct mlx4_en_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> - struct mlx4_en_cq *cq;
> - unsigned long flags;
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < priv->rx_ring_num; i++) {
> - cq = priv->rx_cq[i];
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&cq->lock, flags);
> - napi_synchronize(&cq->napi);
> - mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(dev, cq, 0);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cq->lock, flags);
> + napi_schedule(&priv->tx_cq[i]->napi);
> }
> }
Wait a minute, I thought ndo_poll_controller() had to be synchronous,
not schedule a napi ?
>
> What I can't see is what is a clean thing to do with the mlx4 tx bottom
> napi bottom half. As it won't processes the tx cq when I pass in a
> budget of 0.
Just ignore the budget to drain tx queues, as David said.
>
> What I can't see is how to prevent a netpoll stalling after enough
> packets are transmitted from hard irq context say with sysrq-l on
> a machine with enough cpus to fill the tx queue.
Is this specific to mlx4 ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists