Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S131119AbRCGQuN>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:50:13 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S131120AbRCGQuD>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:50:03 -0500
Received: from [62.90.5.51] ([62.90.5.51]:23058 "EHLO salvador.shunra.co.il")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S131119AbRCGQtw>;
	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:49:52 -0500
Message-ID: <F1629832DE36D411858F00C04F24847A11DEFD@SALVADOR>
From: Ofer Fryman <ofer@shunra.co.il>
To: "'Hen, Shmulik'" <shmulik.hen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: spinlock help
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:54:16 +0200 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

You can clear interrupts in the beginning of the routine, inside it use
test_and_set_bit() and clear_bit(), or you can replace the device xmit
pointer(dev->start_xmit) with a pointer to your routine, anyway eepro100
still sound better even for your purpose.

Ofer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hen, Shmulik [mailto:shmulik.hen@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:47 PM
To: 'Ofer Fryman'; Hen, Shmulik
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: spinlock help

e100 implements all sorts of hooks for our intermediate driver (kind of a
co-development effort), so eepro100 is out of the question for us.

	Shmulik.

From: Ofer Fryman [mailto:ofer@shunra.co.il]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:31 PM
To: 'Hen, Shmulik'
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: spinlock help


Did you try looking at Becker eepro100 driver it seems to be simple, no
unnecessary spin_lock_irqsave?.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hen, Shmulik [mailto:shmulik.hen@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:21 AM
To: 'nigel@nrg.org'; Manoj Sontakke
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: spinlock help


How about if the same sequence occurred, but from two different drivers ?

We've had some bad experience with this stuff. Our driver, which acts as an
intermediate net driver, would call the hard_start_xmit in the base driver.
The base driver, wanting to block receive interrupts would issue a
'spin_lock_irqsave(a,b)' and process the packet. If the TX queue is full, it
could call an indication entry point in our intermediate driver to signal it
to stop sending more packets. Since our indication function handles many
types of indications but can process them only one at a time, we wanted to
block other indications while queuing the request.

The whole sequence would look like that:

[our driver]
	ans_send() {
		.
		.
		e100_hard_start_xmit(dev, skb);
		.
		.
	}

[e100.o]
	e100_hard_start_xmit() {
		.
		.
		spin_lock_irqsave(a,b);
		.
		.
		if(tx_queue_full)
			ans_notify(TX_QUEUE_FULL);	<--
		.
		.
		spin_unlock_irqrestore(a,b);
	}
	
[our driver]
	ans_notify() {
		.
		.
		spin_lock_irqsave(c,d);
		queue_request(req_type);
		spin_unlock_irqrestore(c,d);	<--
		.
		.
	}

At that point, for some reason, interrupts were back and the e100.o would
hang in an infinite loop (we verified it on kernel 2.4.0-test10 +kdb that
the processor was enabling interrupts and that the e100_isr was called for
processing an Rx int.).

How is that possible that a 'spin_unlock_irqrestore(c,d)' would also restore
what should have been restored only with a 'spin_unlock_irqrestore(a,b)' ?


	Thanks in advance,
	Shmulik Hen      
      Software Engineer
	Linux Advanced Networking Services
	Intel Network Communications Group
	Jerusalem, Israel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Gamble [mailto:nigel@nrg.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:54 AM
To: Manoj Sontakke
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlock help


On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Manoj Sontakke wrote:
> 1. when spin_lock_irqsave() function is called the subsequent code is
> executed untill spin_unloc_irqrestore()is called. is this right?

Yes.  The protected code will not be interrupted, or simultaneously
executed by another CPU.

> 2. is this sequence valid?
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(a,b);
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(c,d);

Yes, as long as it is followed by:

	spin_unlock_irqrestore(c, d);
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(a, b);

Nigel Gamble                                    nigel@nrg.org
Mountain View, CA, USA.                         http://www.nrg.org/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/