Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]> writes:
> Since ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() can be called from process context, we
> must explicitly disable softirqs before the call into mac80211.
>
> By calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() instead of ieee80211_tx_dequeue()
> we make sure softirqs are always disabled even in the case when
> ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() is called from process context.
>
> Calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() with softirq's already disabled
> (e.g., from softirq context) should be safe as the local_bh_disable()
> and local_bh_enable() functions (called from ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni)
> are fully reentrant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]>
I already applied this, but I still want to check _why_ you are changing
this? Is it that you want to call ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() from a
workqueue in sdio.c in a future patch, or what? Because at the moment me
and Johannes were not able to find where this is called in process
context.
--
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On 10/1/19 4:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Since ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() can be called from process context, we
>> must explicitly disable softirqs before the call into mac80211.
>>
>> By calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() instead of ieee80211_tx_dequeue()
>> we make sure softirqs are always disabled even in the case when
>> ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() is called from process context.
>>
>> Calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() with softirq's already disabled
>> (e.g., from softirq context) should be safe as the local_bh_disable()
>> and local_bh_enable() functions (called from ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni)
>> are fully reentrant.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]>
> I already applied this, but I still want to check _why_ you are changing
> this? Is it that you want to call ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() from a
> workqueue in sdio.c in a future patch, or what? Because at the moment me
> and Johannes were not able to find where this is called in process
> context.
>
It seems Johannes wants to fix it in mac80211.
[PATCH v2] mac80211: keep BHs disabled while calling drv_tx_wake_queue()
Drivers typically expect this, as it's the case for almost all cases
where this is called (i.e. from the TX path). Also, the code in mac80211
itself (if the driver calls ieee80211_tx_dequeue()) expects this as it
uses this_cpu_ptr() without additional protection.
On 10/1/19 7:13 PM, Peter Oh wrote:
>
> On 10/1/19 4:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Since ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() can be called from process context, we
>>> must explicitly disable softirqs before the call into mac80211.
>>>
>>> By calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() instead of ieee80211_tx_dequeue()
>>> we make sure softirqs are always disabled even in the case when
>>> ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() is called from process context.
>>>
>>> Calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() with softirq's already disabled
>>> (e.g., from softirq context) should be safe as the local_bh_disable()
>>> and local_bh_enable() functions (called from ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni)
>>> are fully reentrant.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]>
>> I already applied this, but I still want to check _why_ you are changing
>> this? Is it that you want to call ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() from a
>> workqueue in sdio.c in a future patch, or what? Because at the moment me
>> and Johannes were not able to find where this is called in process
>> context.
>>
SDIO irqs are threaded irqs (at least on my iMX6 board) and hence process context.
I will see if I can find a trace that shows the call chain more exactly.
> It seems Johannes wants to fix it in mac80211.
>
> [PATCH v2] mac80211: keep BHs disabled while calling drv_tx_wake_queue()
>
> Drivers typically expect this, as it's the case for almost all cases
> where this is called (i.e. from the TX path). Also, the code in mac80211
> itself (if the driver calls ieee80211_tx_dequeue()) expects this as it
> uses this_cpu_ptr() without additional protection.
>
On 10/9/19 9:23 PM, Erik Stromdahl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 7:13 PM, Peter Oh wrote:
>>
>> On 10/1/19 4:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Since ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() can be called from process context, we
>>>> must explicitly disable softirqs before the call into mac80211.
>>>>
>>>> By calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() instead of ieee80211_tx_dequeue()
>>>> we make sure softirqs are always disabled even in the case when
>>>> ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() is called from process context.
>>>>
>>>> Calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() with softirq's already disabled
>>>> (e.g., from softirq context) should be safe as the local_bh_disable()
>>>> and local_bh_enable() functions (called from ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni)
>>>> are fully reentrant.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <[email protected]>
>>> I already applied this, but I still want to check _why_ you are changing
>>> this? Is it that you want to call ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() from a
>>> workqueue in sdio.c in a future patch, or what? Because at the moment me
>>> and Johannes were not able to find where this is called in process
>>> context.
>>>
> SDIO irqs are threaded irqs (at least on my iMX6 board) and hence process context.
> I will see if I can find a trace that shows the call chain more exactly.
>
I found this backtrace in a log file:
(it does not show the call to ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni(), but it shows that
ath10k_sdio_irq_handler() is called from process context)
irq/62-mmc1-65 [000] .... 785.261081: ath10k_mac_op_wake_tx_queue <-ieee80211_queue_skb
irq/62-mmc1-65 [000] .... 785.261090: <stack trace>
=> ieee80211_queue_skb
=> __ieee80211_subif_start_xmit
=> ieee80211_subif_start_xmit
=> dev_hard_start_xmit
=> __dev_queue_xmit
=> dev_queue_xmit
=> ip_finish_output2
=> ip_finish_output
=> ip_output
=> ip_local_out
=> ip_queue_xmit
=> tcp_transmit_skb
=> tcp_write_xmit
=> __tcp_push_pending_frames
=> tcp_rcv_established
=> tcp_v4_do_rcv
=> tcp_v4_rcv
=> ip_local_deliver_finish
=> ip_local_deliver
=> ip_rcv_finish
=> ip_rcv
=> __netif_receive_skb_core
=> __netif_receive_skb
=> netif_receive_skb_internal
=> netif_receive_skb
=> ieee80211_deliver_skb
=> ieee80211_rx_handlers
=> ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle
=> ieee80211_rx_napi
=> ath10k_htt_t2h_msg_handler
=> ath10k_htt_htc_t2h_msg_handler
=> ath10k_sdio_mbox_rxmsg_pending_handler
=> ath10k_sdio_irq_handler <- ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() is called from here
=> process_sdio_pending_irqs
=> sdio_run_irqs
=> sdhci_thread_irq
=> irq_thread_fn
=> irq_thread
=> kthread
=> ret_from_fork
=> 0
From ath10k_sdio_irq_handler(), the call chain down to ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni()
looks like this:
ath10k_sdio_irq_handler() =>
ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() =>
ath10k_mac_schedule_txq() =>
ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() =>
ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni()
>
>> It seems Johannes wants to fix it in mac80211.
>>
>> [PATCH v2] mac80211: keep BHs disabled while calling drv_tx_wake_queue()
>>
>> Drivers typically expect this, as it's the case for almost all cases
>> where this is called (i.e. from the TX path). Also, the code in mac80211
>> itself (if the driver calls ieee80211_tx_dequeue()) expects this as it
>> uses this_cpu_ptr() without additional protection.
>>