netdev - [net-next 17/25] fm10k: comment next_vf

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: <1429055471-401-18-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:51:03 -0700
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com, jogreene@...hat.com,
	Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: [net-next 17/25] fm10k: comment next_vf_mbx flow

Add a header comment explaining why we have the somewhat crazy mailbox
flow. This flow is necessary as it prevents the PF<->SM mailbox from
being flooded by the VF messages, which normally trigger a message to
the PF. This helps prevent the case where we see a PF mailbox timeout.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Acked-by: Matthew Vick <matthew.vick@...el.com>
Tested-by: Krishneil Singh <krishneil.k.singh@...el.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
index 0b37e19..5b08e62 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_iov.c
@@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ s32 fm10k_iov_mbx(struct fm10k_intfc *interface)
 	/* lock the mailbox for transmit and receive */
 	fm10k_mbx_lock(interface);
 
+	/* Most VF messages sent to the PF cause the PF to respond by
+	 * requesting from the SM mailbox. This means that too many VF
+	 * messages processed at once could cause a mailbox timeout on the PF.
+	 * To prevent this, store a pointer to the next VF mbx to process. Use
+	 * that as the start of the loop so that we don't starve whichever VF
+	 * got ignored on the previous run.
+	 */
 process_mbx:
 	for (i = iov_data->next_vf_mbx ? : iov_data->num_vfs; i--;) {
 		struct fm10k_vf_info *vf_info = &iov_data->vf_info[i];
@@ -137,6 +144,10 @@ process_mbx:
 		mbx->ops.process(hw, mbx);
 	}
 
+	/* if we stopped processing mailboxes early, update next_vf_mbx.
+	 * Otherwise, reset next_vf_mbx, and restart loop so that we process
+	 * the remaining mailboxes we skipped at the start.
+	 */
 	if (i >= 0) {
 		iov_data->next_vf_mbx = i + 1;
 	} else if (iov_data->next_vf_mbx) {
-- 
1.9.3

--
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