[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97732cc0a75c0be3f2354075085e7fa6d78e82bb.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 17:24:14 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jijie Shao <shaojijie@...wei.com>, yisen.zhuang@...wei.com,
salil.mehta@...wei.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org
Cc: shenjian15@...wei.com, wangjie125@...wei.com, liuyonglong@...wei.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 6/7] net: hns3: fix VF reset fail issue
On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 20:16 +0800, Jijie Shao wrote:
> on 2023/11/2 18:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Sat, 2023-10-28 at 10:59 +0800, Jijie Shao wrote:
> > >
> > > -static void hclgevf_clear_event_cause(struct hclgevf_dev *hdev, u32 regclr)
> > > +static void hclgevf_clear_event_cause(struct hclgevf_dev *hdev, u32 regclr,
> > > + bool need_dalay)
> > > {
> > > +#define HCLGEVF_RESET_DELAY 5
> > > +
> > > + if (need_dalay)
> > > + mdelay(HCLGEVF_RESET_DELAY);
> > 5ms delay in an interrupt handler is quite a lot. What about scheduling
> > a timer from the IH to clear the register when such delay is needed?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Paolo
>
> Using timer in this case will complicate the code and make maintenance difficult.
Why?
Would something alike the following be ok? (plus reset_timer
initialization at vf creation and cleanup at vf removal time):
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3vf/hclgevf_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3vf/hclgevf_main.c
index a4d68fb216fb..626bc67065fc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3vf/hclgevf_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3vf/hclgevf_main.c
@@ -1974,6 +1974,14 @@ static enum hclgevf_evt_cause hclgevf_check_evt_cause(struct hclgevf_dev *hdev,
return HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_OTHER;
}
+static void hclgevf_reset_timer(struct timer_list *t)
+{
+ struct hclgevf_dev *hdev = from_timer(hclgevf_dev, t, reset_timer);
+
+ hclgevf_clear_event_cause(hdev, HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_RST);
+ hclgevf_reset_task_schedule(hdev);
+}
+
static irqreturn_t hclgevf_misc_irq_handle(int irq, void *data)
{
enum hclgevf_evt_cause event_cause;
@@ -1982,13 +1990,13 @@ static irqreturn_t hclgevf_misc_irq_handle(int irq, void *data)
hclgevf_enable_vector(&hdev->misc_vector, false);
event_cause = hclgevf_check_evt_cause(hdev, &clearval);
+ if (event_cause == HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_RST)
+ mod_timer(hdev->reset_timer, jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(5));
+
if (event_cause != HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_OTHER)
hclgevf_clear_event_cause(hdev, clearval);
switch (event_cause) {
- case HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_RST:
- hclgevf_reset_task_schedule(hdev);
- break;
case HCLGEVF_VECTOR0_EVENT_MBX:
hclgevf_mbx_handler(hdev);
break;
---
> We consider reducing the delay time by polling. For example,
> the code cycles every 50 us to check whether the write register takes effect.
> If yes, the function returns immediately. or the code cycles until 5 ms.
>
> Is this method appropriate?
IMHO such solution will not remove the problem. How frequent is
expected to be the irq generating such delay?
Thanks
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists