[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220113180709.0dade123@xps13>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:07:09 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Cc: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
Harry Morris <h.morris@...coda.com>,
Varka Bhadram <varkabhadram@...il.com>,
Xue Liu <liuxuenetmail@...il.com>, Alan Ott <alan@...nal11.us>,
David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org Wireless"
<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [wpan-next v2 18/27] net: mac802154: Handle scan requests
Hi Alexander,
alex.aring@...il.com wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:44:02 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 12:33, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> ...
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > diff --git a/net/mac802154/tx.c b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > index c829e4a75325..40656728c624 100644
> > --- a/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > +++ b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ ieee802154_tx(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > struct net_device *dev = skb->dev;
> > int ret;
> >
> > + if (unlikely(mac802154_scan_is_ongoing(local)))
> > + return NETDEV_TX_BUSY;
> > +
>
> Please look into the functions "ieee802154_wake_queue()" and
> "ieee802154_stop_queue()" which prevent this function from being
> called. Call stop before starting scanning and wake after scanning is
> done or stopped.
Mmmh all this is already done, isn't it?
- mac802154_trigger_scan_locked() stops the queue before setting the
promiscuous mode
- mac802154_end_of_scan() wakes the queue after resetting the
promiscuous mode to its original state
Should I drop the check which stands for an extra precaution?
But overall I think I don't understand well this part. What is
a bit foggy to me is why the (async) tx implementation does:
*Core* *Driver*
stop_queue()
drv_async_xmit() -------
\------> do something
------- calls ieee802154_xmit_complete()
wakeup_queue() <--------/
So we actually disable the queue for transmitting. Why??
> Also there exists a race which exists in your way and also the one
> mentioned above. There can still be some transmissions going on... We
> need to wait until "all possible" tx completions are done... to be
> sure there are really no transmissions going on. However we need to be
> sure that a wake cannot be done if a tx completion is done, we need to
> avoid it when the scan operation is ongoing as a workaround for this
> race.
>
> This race exists and should be fixed in future work?
Yep, this is true, do you have any pointers? Because I looked at the
code and for now it appears quite unpractical to add some kind of
flushing mechanism on that net queue. I believe we cannot use the netif
interface for that so we would have to implement our own mechanism in
the ieee802154 core.
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists