netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: improve handling task scheduling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ef28e3dd-6869-5047-5113-c6f9288956b6@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:53:37 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Realtek linux nic maintainers
	<nic_swsd@...ltek.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Miller
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: improve handling task scheduling

On 11/27/23 18:20, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> If we know that the task is going to be a no-op, don't even schedule it.
> And remove the check for netif_running() in the worker function, the
> check for flag RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED is sufficient. Note that we can't
> remove the check for flag RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED in the worker function
> because we have no guarantee when it will be executed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c | 6 ++++--
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> index b74d7cc50..91d9dc5a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> @@ -2228,6 +2228,9 @@ u16 rtl8168h_2_get_adc_bias_ioffset(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
>   
>   static void rtl_schedule_task(struct rtl8169_private *tp, enum rtl_flag flag)
>   {
> +	if (!test_bit(RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED, tp->wk.flags))
> +		return;
> +
>   	set_bit(flag, tp->wk.flags);
>   	schedule_work(&tp->wk.work);
>   }
> @@ -4468,8 +4471,7 @@ static void rtl_task(struct work_struct *work)
>   
>   	rtnl_lock();
>   
> -	if (!netif_running(tp->dev) ||
> -	    !test_bit(RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED, tp->wk.flags))
> +	if (!test_bit(RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED, tp->wk.flags))
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   
>   	if (test_and_clear_bit(RTL_FLAG_TASK_TX_TIMEOUT, tp->wk.flags)) {

sounds plausible and likely to run better,

Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>