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;
Message-ID: <48804ac2-e5aa-bb48-3a44-922e0bd3b688@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:25:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw_ale: optimize cpsw_ale_restore()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        vigneshr@ti.com, srk@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221108135643.15094-1-rogerq@kernel.org>
 <20221109191941.6af4f71d@kernel.org>
 <32eacc9d-3866-149a-579a-41f8e405123f@kernel.org>
 <20221110123249.5f0e19df@kernel.org>
From:   Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221110123249.5f0e19df@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jakub,

On 10/11/2022 22:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:39:47 +0200 Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> Maybe my tree is old but I see we clear only if there is a netdev that  
>>
>> This patch depends on this series
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221104132310.31577-3-rogerq@kernel.org/T/
> 
> I do have those in my tree.
> 
>>> needs to be opened but then always call ale_restore(). Is that okay?  
>>
>> If netdev is closed and opened ale_restore() is not called.
>> ale_restore() is only called during system suspend/resume path
>> since CPSW-ALE might have lost context during suspend and we want to restore
>> all valid ALE entries.
> 
> Ack, what I'm referring to is the contents of am65_cpsw_nuss_resume().
> 
> I'm guessing that ALE_CLEAR is expected to be triggered by
> cpsw_ale_start().
> 
> Assuming above is true and that ALE_CLEAR comes from cpsw_ale_start(),
> the call stack is:
> 
>  cpsw_ale_start()
>  am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open()
>  am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open()
>  am65_cpsw_nuss_resume()
> 
> but resume() only calls ndo_slave_open under certain conditions:
> 
>         for (i = 0; i < common->port_num; i++) {                                  
>                 if (netif_running(ndev)) {                                      
>                         rtnl_lock();                                            
>                         ret = am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open(ndev);    
> 
> Is there another path? Or perhaps there's nothing to restore 
> if all netdevs are down?

I see your point now. We are missing a ALE_CLEAR if all interfaces were
down during suspend/resume.
In this case the call to cpsw_ale_restore() is pointless as ALE will be
cleared again when one of the interfaces is brought up.

I'll revise the patch to call cpsw_ale_restore only if any interface
was running.

> 
>> I have a question here. How should ageable entries be treated in this case?
> 
> Ah, no idea :) Let's me add experts to To:

Thanks.

cheers,
-roger