Grab rx_page_lock in mt76u_refill_rx allocating rx buffer for 'legacy'
mode. Remove gfp from mt76u_refill_rx signature since we need to
use GFP_ATOMIC
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
index ae6ada370597..7ce3c7f9d5d8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
@@ -325,15 +325,17 @@ mt76u_fill_rx_sg(struct mt76_dev *dev, struct mt76u_buf *buf,
static int
mt76u_refill_rx(struct mt76_dev *dev, struct mt76_queue *q,
- struct mt76u_buf *buf, int nsgs, gfp_t gfp)
+ struct mt76u_buf *buf, int nsgs)
{
- if (dev->usb.sg_en) {
+ if (dev->usb.sg_en)
return mt76u_fill_rx_sg(dev, buf, nsgs, q->buf_size,
SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(q->buf_size));
- } else {
- buf->buf = page_frag_alloc(&q->rx_page, q->buf_size, gfp);
- return buf->buf ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
- }
+
+ spin_lock_bh(&q->rx_page_lock);
+ buf->buf = page_frag_alloc(&q->rx_page, q->buf_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&q->rx_page_lock);
+
+ return buf->buf ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
}
static int
@@ -358,7 +360,7 @@ mt76u_buf_alloc(struct mt76_dev *dev, struct mt76u_buf *buf)
sg_init_table(buf->urb->sg, MT_SG_MAX_SIZE);
}
- return mt76u_refill_rx(dev, q, buf, MT_SG_MAX_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ return mt76u_refill_rx(dev, q, buf, MT_SG_MAX_SIZE);
}
static void mt76u_buf_free(struct mt76u_buf *buf)
@@ -529,8 +531,7 @@ static void mt76u_rx_tasklet(unsigned long data)
count = mt76u_process_rx_entry(dev, buf);
if (count > 0) {
- err = mt76u_refill_rx(dev, q, buf, count,
- GFP_ATOMIC);
+ err = mt76u_refill_rx(dev, q, buf, count);
if (err < 0)
break;
}
--
2.20.1
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:08:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Grab rx_page_lock in mt76u_refill_rx allocating rx buffer for 'legacy'
> mode. Remove gfp from mt76u_refill_rx signature since we need to
> use GFP_ATOMIC
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
I'm doing some cleanup/optimization work which amongs other things
will remove rx_page_lock. Please drop this patch.
Stanislaw
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:08:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Grab rx_page_lock in mt76u_refill_rx allocating rx buffer for 'legacy'
> > mode. Remove gfp from mt76u_refill_rx signature since we need to
> > use GFP_ATOMIC
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
>
> I'm doing some cleanup/optimization work which amongs other things
> will remove rx_page_lock. Please drop this patch.
Oh, ok. IIRC we need rx_page_lock to fix this:
481bb0432414f790066205fe77226b7d1877385d. Is it still necessary?
Moreover maybe we need this patch for 5.1 since net-next is almost close, no?
@Felix: are you planning to submit other patches for 5.1?
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> Stanislaw
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:37:48PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:08:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > Grab rx_page_lock in mt76u_refill_rx allocating rx buffer for 'legacy'
> > > mode. Remove gfp from mt76u_refill_rx signature since we need to
> > > use GFP_ATOMIC
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
> >
> > I'm doing some cleanup/optimization work which amongs other things
> > will remove rx_page_lock. Please drop this patch.
>
> Oh, ok. IIRC we need rx_page_lock to fix this:
> 481bb0432414f790066205fe77226b7d1877385d. Is it still necessary?
> Moreover maybe we need this patch for 5.1 since net-next is almost close, no?
It is not neccessery now in -next after removing concurrent access to
mt76u_buf_alloc(), can be removed.
Stanislaw