Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190928164843.31800-1-ap420073@gmail.com> <20190928164843.31800-8-ap420073@gmail.com>
 <33adc57c243dccc1dcb478113166fa01add3d49a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAMArcTWrMq0qK72VJv=6ATugMSt_b=FiE4d+xOmi2K3FE8aEyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <72bc9727d0943c56403eac03b6de69c00b0f53f6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAMArcTVeFGqA2W26=rBD5KkjRpFB6gjSgXj8dp+WWrrwJ7pr-A@mail.gmail.com> <bb48fca5a5ffb0a877b2bff8de07ec8090b63427.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <bb48fca5a5ffb0a877b2bff8de07ec8090b63427.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:13:22 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMArcTVvpUsz013K6UXpbKiKfpMKaTsGmJhnv3YfiGOLnh4Zig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 07/12] macvlan: use dynamic lockdep key instead of subclass
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFDDrXJrbw==?= <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>, saeedm@mellanox.com,
        manishc@marvell.com, rahulv@marvell.com, kys@microsoft.com,
        haiyangz@microsoft.com,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        sashal@kernel.org, hare@suse.de, varun@chelsio.com,
        ubraun@linux.ibm.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com,
        Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>,
        Cody Schuffelen <schuffelen@google.com>, bjorn@mork.no
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 20:41, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>

Hi Johannes,

> On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 18:13 +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote:
> >
> > If we place lockdep keys into "struct net_device", this macro would be a
> > little bit modified and reused. And driver code shape will not be huge
> > changed. I think this way is better than this v4 way.
> > So I will try it.
>
> What I was thinking was that if we can do this for every VLAN netdev,
> why shouldn't we do it for *every* netdev unconditionally? Some code
> could perhaps even be simplified if this was just a general part of
> netdev allocation.
>

Your opinion makes sense.
I think there is no critical reason that every netdev shouldn't have
own lockdep keys. By comparison, the benefits are obvious.

> > > But it seems to me the whole nesting also has to be applied here?
> > >
> > > __dev_xmit_skb:
> > >  * qdisc_run_begin()
> > >  * sch_direct_xmit()
> > >    * HARD_TX_LOCK(dev, txq, smp_processor_id());
> > >    * dev_hard_start_xmit() // say this is VLAN
> > >      * dev_queue_xmit() // on real_dev
> > >        * __dev_xmit_skb // recursion on another netdev
> > >
> > > Now if you have VLAN-in-VLAN the whole thing will recurse right?
> > >
> >
> > I have checked on this routine.
> > Only xmit_lock(HARD_TX_LOCK) could be nested. other
> > qdisc locks(runinng, busylock) will not be nested.
>
> OK, I still didn't check it too closely I guess, or got confused which
> lock I should look at.
>
> > This patch already
> > handles the _xmit_lock key. so I think there is no problem.
>
> Right
>
> > But I would like to place four lockdep keys(busylock, address,
> > running, _xmit_lock) into "struct net_device" because of code complexity.
> >
> > Let me know if I misunderstood anything.
>
> Nothing to misunderstand - I was just asking/wondering why the qdisc
> locks were not treated the same way.
>

I'm always thankful for your detailed and careful reviews.

> johannes
>

Thank you,
Taehee Yoo