Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:15:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        evgreen@chromium.org, cpratapa@codeaurora.org,
        subashab@codeaurora.org, elder@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] net: ipa: ensure hardware has power in
 ipa_start_xmit()
Message-ID: <20210816071543.39a44815@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <3a9e82cc-c09e-62e8-4671-8f16d4f6a35b@linaro.org>
References: <20210812195035.2816276-1-elder@linaro.org>
        <20210812195035.2816276-5-elder@linaro.org>
        <20210813174655.1d13b524@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <3a9e82cc-c09e-62e8-4671-8f16d4f6a35b@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:25:23 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
> > This is racy, what if the pm work gets scheduled on another CPU and
> > calls wake right here (i.e. before you call netif_stop_queue())?
> > The queue may never get woken up?  
> 
> I haven't been seeing this happen but I think you may be right.
> 
> I did think about this race, but I think I was relying on the
> PM work queue to somehow avoid the problem.  I need to think
> about this again after a good night's sleep.  I might need
> to add an atomic flag or something.

Maybe add a spin lock?  Seems like the whole wake up path will be
expensive enough for a spin lock to be in the noise. You can always 
add complexity later.