Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:07:02 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sassmann@redhat.com" <sassmann@redhat.com>,
        "Piotrowski, Patryk" <patryk.piotrowski@intel.com>,
        SlawomirX Laba <slawomirx.laba@intel.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] iavf: Do not restart Tx queues after reset task
 failure
Message-ID: <Y20vtqd6raqg8iwy@unreal>
References: <20221108102502.2147389-1-ivecera@redhat.com>
 <Y2vvbwkvAIOdtZaA@unreal>
 <CO1PR11MB508996B0D00B5FE6187AF085D63E9@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20221110155147.1a2c57f6@p1.luc.cera.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221110155147.1a2c57f6@p1.luc.cera.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:51:47PM +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 20:11:55 +0000
> "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Sorry for my naive question, I see this pattern a lot (including RDMA),
> > > so curious. Everyone checks netif_running() outside of rtnl_lock, while
> > > dev_close() changes state bit __LINK_STATE_START. Shouldn't rtnl_lock()
> > > placed before netif_running()?  
> > 
> > Yes I think you're right. A ton of people check it without the lock but I think thats not strictly safe. Is dev_close safe to call when netif_running is false? Why not just remove the check and always call dev_close then.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jake
> 
> Check for a bit value (like netif_runnning()) is much cheaper than unconditionally
> taking global lock like RTNL.

This cheap operation is racy and performed in non-performance critical path.

Thanks

> 
> Ivan
>