mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>,
	Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@marvell.com>,
	Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
	Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table atomically
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 04:45:25 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190625044525.6A45F60A00@smtp.codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190604205323.200361-2-briannorris@chromium.org>

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> mwifiex_11n_scan_and_dispatch() and
> mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt_until_start_win() share similar patterns, where
> they perform a few different actions on the same table, using the same
> lock, but non-atomically. There have been other attempts to clean up
> this sort of behavior, but they have had problems (incomplete;
> introducing new deadlocks).
> 
> We can improve these functions' atomicity by queueing up our RX packets
> in a list, to dispatch at the end of the function. This avoids problems
> of another operation modifying the table in between our dispatch and
> rotation operations.
> 
> This was inspired by investigations around this:
> 
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20181130175957.167031-1-briannorris@chromium.org
>   Subject: [4.20 PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: restructure rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"
> 
> While the original (now-reverted) patch had good intentions in
> restructuring some of the locking patterns in this driver, it missed an
> important detail: we cannot defer to softirq contexts while already in
> an atomic context. We can help avoid this sort of problem by separating
> the two steps of:
> (1) iterating / clearing the mwifiex reordering table
> (2) dispatching received packets to upper layers
> 
> This makes it much harder to make lock recursion mistakes, as these
> two steps no longer need to hold the same locks.
> 
> Testing: I've played with a variety of stress tests, including download
> stress tests on the same APs which caught regressions with commit
> 5188d5453bc9 ("mwifiex: restructure rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"). I've
> primarily tested on Marvell 8997 / PCIe, although I've given 8897 / SDIO
> a quick spin as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>

New warning:

drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/wmm.c: In function 'mwifiex_wmm_process_tx':
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/wmm.c:1438:4: warning: 'flags' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
    mwifiex_11n_aggregate_pkt(priv, ptr, ptr_index, flags);
    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/wmm.c:1406:16: note: 'flags' was declared here
  unsigned long flags;
                ^~~~~

2 patches set to Changes Requested.

10976083 [1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table atomically
10976087 [2/2] mwifiex: don't disable hardirqs; just softirqs

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10976083/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-06-25  4:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-04 20:53 [PATCH 0/2] mwifiex: spinlock usage improvements Brian Norris
2019-06-04 20:53 ` [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table atomically Brian Norris
2019-06-05  9:15   ` [EXT] " Ganapathi Bhat
2019-06-25  4:45   ` Kalle Valo [this message]
     [not found]   ` <20190625044525.846A8607DE@smtp.codeaurora.org>
2019-06-25 17:26     ` Brian Norris
2019-06-04 20:53 ` [PATCH 2/2] mwifiex: don't disable hardirqs; just softirqs Brian Norris

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190625044525.6A45F60A00@smtp.codeaurora.org \
    --to=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=amitkarwar@gmail.com \
    --cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=gbhat@marvell.com \
    --cc=huxinming820@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nishants@marvell.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome