[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1441248121.8932.217.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:42:01 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <nemoto@...hiba-tops.co.jp>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, vbridger@...nsource.altera.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: eth: altera: fix napi poll_list corruption
On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 09:52 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:25:00 -0700, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > Two lines below this change you are disabling interrupts anyways,
> > so I would suggest just moving the spin_lock_irqsave() before the
> > napi_gro_flush() to fix this.
> >
> > Many of the checks done by napi_complete_done() (invoked by
> > napi_complete()) are completely redundant in this context. For
> > example, the direct __napi_complete() call is a really nice
> > optimization because we know we are on the poll list and therefore
> > it is not empty.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion.
>
> I think napi_gro_flush() can be called with irq enabled, so moving the
> spin_lock_irqsave() just before the __napi_complete() (or moving the
> __napi_complete() just after the spin_lock_irqsave()) would be better,
> right?
Unless masking irqs are damn slow on hosts supporting this NIC,
I would rather use napi_complete_done() and add the possibility of
aggregating more frames per GRO packet, setting a non zero
gro_flush_timeout
Calling napi_gro_flush() and __napi_complete() looks error prone.
--
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