[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190719052652.GA19727@f1>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:26:52 +0900
From: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com>,
Sathya Perla <sathya.perla@...adcom.com>,
Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>,
Sriharsha Basavapatna <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Firo Yang <firo.yang@...e.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] be2net: Synchronize be_update_queues with
dev_watchdog
On 2019/07/18 10:23, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 7/17/19 6:42 PM, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > As pointed out by Firo Yang, a netdev tx timeout may trigger just before an
> > ethtool set_channels operation is started. be_tx_timeout(), which dumps
> > some queue structures, is not written to run concurrently with
> > be_update_queues(), which frees/allocates those queues structures. Add some
> > synchronization between the two.
> >
> > Message-id: <CH2PR18MB31898E033896F9760D36BFF288C90@...PR18MB3189.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
>
> Would not moving the netif_tx_disable() in be_close() further up in the
> function resolve that problem as well?
Thanks for your review Florian,
No, netif_tx_disable() doesn't provide mutual exclusion with
dev_watchdog(). You can have:
cpu0 cpu1
\ dev_watchdog
\ netif_tx_lock
\ be_tx_timeout
...
\ be_set_channels
\ be_update_queues
\ netif_carrier_off
\ netif_tx_disable
...
\ be_clear_queues
still running in
be_tx_timeout(),
boom!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists