[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMZdPi8KdWCke5s03Bvy_4NZcDsgp+jPW5dqvCHyiU2C==tsmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:53:07 +0200
From: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
To: Sreehari Kancharla <sreehari.kancharla@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
johannes@...solutions.net, ryazanov.s.a@...il.com,
m.chetan.kumar@...el.com, chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com,
linuxwwan@...el.com, chiranjeevi.rapolu@...ux.intel.com,
haijun.liu@...iatek.com, ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, dinesh.sharma@...el.com,
ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, moises.veleta@...el.com,
sreehari.kancharla@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: wwan: t7xx: Add NAPI support
Hi Sreehari,
On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 18:40, Sreehari Kancharla
<sreehari.kancharla@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
>
> Replace the work queue based RX flow with a NAPI implementation
> Remove rx_thread and dpmaif_rxq_work.
> Introduce dummy network device. its responsibility is
> - Binds one NAPI object for each DL HW queue and acts as
> the agent of all those network devices.
> - Use NAPI object to poll DL packets.
> - Helps to dispatch each packet to the network interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
> Co-developed-by: Sreehari Kancharla <sreehari.kancharla@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sreehari Kancharla <sreehari.kancharla@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chandrashekar Devegowda <chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: M Chetan Kumar <m.chetan.kumar@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif.h | 14 +-
> drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif_rx.c | 220 +++++++--------------
> drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif_rx.h | 1 +
> drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_netdev.c | 93 ++++++++-
> drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_netdev.h | 5 +
> 5 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 166 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif.h b/drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif.h
> index 1225ca0ed51e..0ce4505e813d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_hif_dpmaif.h
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
[...]
> -static void t7xx_dpmaif_rxq_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +int t7xx_dpmaif_napi_rx_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, const int budget)
> {
> - struct dpmaif_rx_queue *rxq = container_of(work, struct dpmaif_rx_queue, dpmaif_rxq_work);
> - struct dpmaif_ctrl *dpmaif_ctrl = rxq->dpmaif_ctrl;
> - int ret;
> + struct dpmaif_rx_queue *rxq = container_of(napi, struct dpmaif_rx_queue, napi);
> + struct t7xx_pci_dev *t7xx_dev = rxq->dpmaif_ctrl->t7xx_dev;
> + int ret, once_more = 0, work_done = 0;
>
> atomic_set(&rxq->rx_processing, 1);
> /* Ensure rx_processing is changed to 1 before actually begin RX flow */
> @@ -917,22 +840,54 @@ static void t7xx_dpmaif_rxq_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> if (!rxq->que_started) {
> atomic_set(&rxq->rx_processing, 0);
> - dev_err(dpmaif_ctrl->dev, "Work RXQ: %d has not been started\n", rxq->index);
> - return;
> + dev_err(rxq->dpmaif_ctrl->dev, "Work RXQ: %d has not been started\n", rxq->index);
> + return work_done;
> }
>
> - ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dpmaif_ctrl->dev);
> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
> - return;
> + if (!rxq->sleep_lock_pending) {
> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(rxq->dpmaif_ctrl->dev);
AFAIK, polling is not called in a context allowing you to sleep (e.g.
performing a synced pm runtime operation).
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
> + return work_done;
>
> - t7xx_pci_disable_sleep(dpmaif_ctrl->t7xx_dev);
> - if (t7xx_pci_sleep_disable_complete(dpmaif_ctrl->t7xx_dev))
> - t7xx_dpmaif_do_rx(dpmaif_ctrl, rxq);
> + t7xx_pci_disable_sleep(t7xx_dev);
> + }
>
> - t7xx_pci_enable_sleep(dpmaif_ctrl->t7xx_dev);
> - pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dpmaif_ctrl->dev);
> - pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dpmaif_ctrl->dev);
> + ret = try_wait_for_completion(&t7xx_dev->sleep_lock_acquire);
The logic seems odd, why not simply scheduling napi polling when you
are really ready to handle it, i.e when you have awake condition & rx
ready.
> + if (!ret) {
> + napi_complete_done(napi, work_done);
> + rxq->sleep_lock_pending = true;
> + napi_reschedule(napi);
> + return work_done;
> + }
> +
[...]
Regards,
Loic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists