> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2024年10月10日 1:25
> To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>; Claudiu
> Manoil <claudiu.manoil@xxxxxxx>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>;
> christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/11] net: enetc: optimize the allocation of
> tx_bdr
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 05:51:14PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by
> > bdr_int_num. For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num
> > is 3. According to the previous logic, this results in two
> > tx_bdr corresponding memories not being allocated, so when
> > sending packets to tx BD ring 6 or 7, wild pointers will be
> > accessed. Of course, this issue does not exist for LS1028A,
> > because its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1
> > or 2. So there is no situation where it cannot be divided.
> > However, there is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95, so the
> > allocation of tx_bdr is optimized to ensure that each tx_bdr
> > can be allocated to the corresponding memory.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 121 ++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > index 032d8eadd003..b84c88a76762 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > @@ -2965,13 +2965,70 @@ int enetc_ioctl(struct net_device *ndev, struct
> ifreq *rq, int cmd)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(enetc_ioctl);
> >
> > +static int enetc_bdr_init(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv, int i, int v_tx_rings)
> > +{
> > + struct enetc_int_vector *v __free(kfree);
> > + struct enetc_bdr *bdr;
> > + int j, err;
> > +
> > + v = kzalloc(struct_size(v, tx_ring, v_tx_rings), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!v)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + bdr = &v->rx_ring;
> > + bdr->index = i;
> > + bdr->ndev = priv->ndev;
> > + bdr->dev = priv->dev;
> > + bdr->bd_count = priv->rx_bd_count;
> > + bdr->buffer_offset = ENETC_RXB_PAD;
> > + priv->rx_ring[i] = bdr;
> > +
> > + err = xdp_rxq_info_reg(&bdr->xdp.rxq, priv->ndev, i, 0);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + err = xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(&bdr->xdp.rxq,
> > + MEM_TYPE_PAGE_SHARED, NULL);
> > + if (err) {
> > + xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&bdr->xdp.rxq);
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* init defaults for adaptive IC */
> > + if (priv->ic_mode & ENETC_IC_RX_ADAPTIVE) {
> > + v->rx_ictt = 0x1;
> > + v->rx_dim_en = true;
> > + }
> > + INIT_WORK(&v->rx_dim.work, enetc_rx_dim_work);
> > + netif_napi_add(priv->ndev, &v->napi, enetc_poll);
> > + v->count_tx_rings = v_tx_rings;
> > +
> > + for (j = 0; j < v_tx_rings; j++) {
> > + int idx;
> > +
> > + /* default tx ring mapping policy */
> > + idx = priv->bdr_int_num * j + i;
> > + __set_bit(idx, &v->tx_rings_map);
> > + bdr = &v->tx_ring[j];
> > + bdr->index = idx;
> > + bdr->ndev = priv->ndev;
> > + bdr->dev = priv->dev;
> > + bdr->bd_count = priv->tx_bd_count;
> > + priv->tx_ring[idx] = bdr;
> > + }
> > +
> > + priv->int_vector[i] = no_free_ptr(v);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
> > {
> > struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->si->pdev;
> > + int v_tx_rings, v_remainder;
> > int num_stack_tx_queues;
> > int first_xdp_tx_ring;
> > int i, n, err, nvec;
> > - int v_tx_rings;
> >
> > nvec = ENETC_BDR_INT_BASE_IDX + priv->bdr_int_num;
> > /* allocate MSIX for both messaging and Rx/Tx interrupts */
> > @@ -2985,65 +3042,11 @@ int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv
> *priv)
> >
> > /* # of tx rings per int vector */
> > v_tx_rings = priv->num_tx_rings / priv->bdr_int_num;
> > + v_remainder = priv->num_tx_rings % priv->bdr_int_num;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++) {
> > - struct enetc_int_vector *v;
> > - struct enetc_bdr *bdr;
> > - int j;
> > -
> > - v = kzalloc(struct_size(v, tx_ring, v_tx_rings), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!v) {
> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto fail;
> > - }
> > -
> > - priv->int_vector[i] = v;
> > -
> > - bdr = &v->rx_ring;
> > - bdr->index = i;
> > - bdr->ndev = priv->ndev;
> > - bdr->dev = priv->dev;
> > - bdr->bd_count = priv->rx_bd_count;
> > - bdr->buffer_offset = ENETC_RXB_PAD;
> > - priv->rx_ring[i] = bdr;
> > -
> > - err = xdp_rxq_info_reg(&bdr->xdp.rxq, priv->ndev, i, 0);
> > - if (err) {
> > - kfree(v);
> > - goto fail;
> > - }
> > -
> > - err = xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(&bdr->xdp.rxq,
> > - MEM_TYPE_PAGE_SHARED, NULL);
> > - if (err) {
> > - xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&bdr->xdp.rxq);
> > - kfree(v);
> > - goto fail;
> > - }
> > -
> > - /* init defaults for adaptive IC */
> > - if (priv->ic_mode & ENETC_IC_RX_ADAPTIVE) {
> > - v->rx_ictt = 0x1;
> > - v->rx_dim_en = true;
> > - }
> > - INIT_WORK(&v->rx_dim.work, enetc_rx_dim_work);
> > - netif_napi_add(priv->ndev, &v->napi, enetc_poll);
> > - v->count_tx_rings = v_tx_rings;
> > -
> > - for (j = 0; j < v_tx_rings; j++) {
> > - int idx;
> > -
> > - /* default tx ring mapping policy */
> > - idx = priv->bdr_int_num * j + i;
> > - __set_bit(idx, &v->tx_rings_map);
> > - bdr = &v->tx_ring[j];
> > - bdr->index = idx;
> > - bdr->ndev = priv->ndev;
> > - bdr->dev = priv->dev;
> > - bdr->bd_count = priv->tx_bd_count;
> > - priv->tx_ring[idx] = bdr;
> > - }
> > - }
> > + for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++)
> > + enetc_bdr_init(priv, i,
> > + i < v_remainder ? v_tx_rings + 1 : v_tx_rings);
>
> suggest you create two patches, one just move to help function to
> enetc_bdr_init(), the another is for real fixes.
Sure, thanks
>
> >
> > num_stack_tx_queues = enetc_num_stack_tx_queues(priv);
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
