Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1520276942.109662.9.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: inconsistent lock state with usbnet/asix usb ethernet and xhci
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        'Linux Samsung SOC' <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Dean Jenkins <Dean_Jenkins@mentor.com>
Date:   Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:09:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1520250367.3990.9.camel@suse.com>
References: <CGME20180227072602eucas1p28dcdba711b3153820bd409d838cc63bd@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
         <c15c90ef-ce1b-4dd7-1d9f-673deb01b6d2@samsung.com>
         <1519740421.7296.6.camel@gmail.com>
         <bac44c1b-d701-2f6b-5e1e-738befc25c9d@samsung.com>
         <1519744167.7296.8.camel@gmail.com> <1519744400.7296.10.camel@gmail.com>
         <1519747675.2649.3.camel@suse.com>
         <02679502-cf6e-8714-e879-50a922c5d976@samsung.com>
         <1520250367.3990.9.camel@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 12:46 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 08:45 +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> > 
> > On 2018-02-27 17:07, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, den 27.02.2018, 07:13 -0800 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 07:09 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Note that for this one, it seems we also could perform stats
> > > > > updates in
> > > > > BH context, since skb is queued via defer_bh()
> > > > > 
> > > > > But simplicity wins I guess.
> > > > 
> > > > Thinking more about this, I am not sure we have any guarantee
> > > > that TX
> > > > and RX can not run on multiple cpus.
> > > > 
> > > > Using an unique syncp is not going to be safe, even if we make
> > > > lockdep
> > > > happy enough with the local_irq save/restore.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately you are right. It is not guaranteed for some
> > > hardware.
> > 
> > Does it mean that the fix proposed by Eric is not the proper
> > solution?
> 
> For asix it should work, but asix is unlikely to be the only driver
> with that issue. 32 bit recieves less testing nowadays.

Yes, although the lockdep part could be enforced in 64bit if we really
care.

I will send a patch using two different sync (one for RX, one for TX)