Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262116AbTGWJWt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:22:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262872AbTGWJWs (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:22:48 -0400 Received: from exzh001.alcatel.ch ([212.243.156.171]:18963 "HELO exzh001.alcatel.ch") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262116AbTGWJWm (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:22:42 -0400 Message-ID: <000d01c350fd$e625c9d0$a61fc682@alcatel.ch> From: "Daniel Ritz" To: "Javier Achirica" Cc: "Jeff Garzik" , "linux-kernel" , "linux-net" , "Jean Tourrilhes" , "Mike Kershaw" References: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5] fixes for airo.c Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:36:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4970 Lines: 143 ok, now the braindamaged thing called sourceforge showed the changes, but: - i don't think the race is fixed. just remove the whole down_trylock() crap in the xmit altogether and replace it with a single down(). faster, simpler, not racy...and with the schedule_work you win nothing, you lose speed - please don't commit bugfixes and new features in the same changeset... - the loop-forever fix in transmit_allocate: you should have copied the comment changes from my patch too, so the spin-forever-comment goes away... i look closer when i'm home, having a real operating system to work on, not this winblows box at work now.. -daniel Javier Achirica wrote: > > Today I updated the CVS and Sourceforge (airo-linux.sf.net) with the > latest version (1.53) that (I hope) fixes the race problem. If everything > is fine, I'll commit the changes to the kernel tree. > > Javier Achirica > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Daniel Ritz wrote: > > > On Mon July 21 2003 21:44, Javier Achirica wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Daniel Ritz wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon July 21 2003 13:00, Javier Achirica wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your patch. Some comments about it: > > > > > > > > > > - I'd rather fix whatever is broken in the current code than going back to > > > > > spinlocks, as they increase latency and reduce concurrency. In any case, > > > > > please check your code. I've seen a spinlock in the interrupt handler that > > > > > may lock the system. > > > > > > > > but we need to protect from interrupts while accessing the card and waiting for > > > > completion. semaphores don't protect you from that. spin_lock_irqsave does. the > > > > spin_lock in the interrupt handler is there to protect from interrupts from > > > > other processors in a SMP system (see Documentation/spinlocks.txt) and is btw. > > > > a no-op on UP. and semaphores are quite heavy.... > > > > > > Not really. You can still read the received packets from the card (as > > > you're not issuing any command and are using the other BAP) while a > > > command is in progress. There are some specific cases in which you need > > > to have protection, and that cases are avoided with the down_trylock. > > > > > > > ok, i think i have to look closer...if the card can handle that then we don't need > > to irq-protect all the areas i did protect...but i do think that those down_trylock and > > then the schedule_work should be replaced by a simple spinlock_irq_save... > > > > i look closer at it tomorrow. > > you happen to have the tech spec lying aroung? > > > > > AFAIK, interrupt serialization is assured by the interrupt handler, so you > > > don't need to do that. > > > > > > > > - The fix for the transmit code you mention, is about fixing the returned > > > > > value in case of error? If not, please explain it to me as I don't see any > > > > > other changes. > > > > > > > > fixes: > > > > - return values > > > > - when to free the skb, when not > > > > - disabling the queues > > > > - netif_wake_queue called from the interrupt handler only (and on the right > > > > net_device) > > > > - i think the priv->xmit stuff and then the schedule_work is evil: > > > > if you return 0 from the dev->hard_start_xmit then the network layer assumes > > > > that the packet was kfree_skb()'ed (which does only frees the packet when the > > > > refcount drops to zero.) this is the cause for the keventd killing, for sure! > > > > > > > > if you return 0 you already kfree_skb()'ed the packet. and that's it. > > > > > > This is where I have the biggest problems. As I've read in > > > Documentation/networking/driver.txt, looks like the packet needs to be > > > freed "soon", but doesn't require to be before returning 0 in > > > hard_start_xmit. Did I get it wrong? > > > > > > > no, i got it wrong. but still...it's the xmit where the oops comes from.... > > > > wait. isn't there a race in airo_do_xmit? at high xfer rates (when it oopses) the > > queue can wake right after it is stopped in the down_trylock section. so you can > > happen to loose an skb 'cos the write to priv->xmit is not protected at all and > > there should be a check so that only one skb can be queue there. no? > > (and then the irq-handler can wake the queue too) > > > > ok, i think i got it now. i'll do a new patch tomorrow or so that tries: > > - to fix the transmit not to oops > > - to avoid disabling the irq's whenever possible > > - using spinlocks instead of the heavier semaphores ('cos i think if it's done cleaner > > than i did it now, it's faster than the semas, and to make hch happy :) > > > > > > > Thanks for your help, > > > Javier Achirica > > > > > > > rgds > > -daniel > > > > > > > - 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/