On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Giovanni Cabiddu wrote:
> Hi Mikulas,
>
> thanks for your patch. See below.
>
> > + qat_req->backed_off = backed_off = adf_should_back_off(ctx->inst->sym_tx);
> > +again:
> > + ret = adf_send_message(ctx->inst->sym_tx, (uint32_t *)msg);
> > if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> > - qat_alg_free_bufl(ctx->inst, qat_req);
> > - return -EBUSY;
> > + qat_req->backed_off = backed_off = 1;
> > + cpu_relax();
> > + goto again;
> > }
> I am a bit concerned about this potential infinite loop.
> If an error occurred on the device and the queue is full, we will be
> stuck here forever.
> Should we just retry a number of times and then fail?
It's better to get stuck in an infinite loop than to cause random I/O
errors. The infinite loop requires reboot, but it doesn't damage data on
disks.
The proper solution would be to add the request to a queue and process the
queue when some other request ended - but it would need substantial
rewrite of the driver. Do you want to rewrite it using a queue?
> Or, should we just move to the crypto-engine?
What do you mean by the crypto-engine?
> > - do {
> > - ret = adf_send_message(ctx->inst->sym_tx, (uint32_t *)msg);
> > - } while (ret == -EAGAIN && ctr++ < 10);
> > -
> > + qat_req->backed_off = backed_off = adf_should_back_off(ctx->inst->sym_tx);
> checkpatch: line over 80 characters - same in every place
> adf_should_back_off is used.
Recently, Linus announced that we can have larger lines than 80 bytes.
See bdc48fa11e46f867ea4d75fa59ee87a7f48be144
> > static int qat_alg_skcipher_blk_decrypt(struct skcipher_request *req)
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_transport.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_transport.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_transport.c
> > @@ -114,10 +114,19 @@ static void adf_disable_ring_irq(struct
> > WRITE_CSR_INT_COL_EN(bank->csr_addr, bank->bank_number, bank->irq_mask);
> > }
> >
> > +bool adf_should_back_off(struct adf_etr_ring_data *ring)
> > +{
> > + return atomic_read(ring->inflights) > ADF_MAX_INFLIGHTS(ring->ring_size, ring->msg_size) * 15 / 16;
> How did you came up with 15/16?
I want the sender to back off before the queue is full, to avoid
busy-waiting. There may be more concurrent senders, so we want to back off
at some point before the queue is full.
> checkpatch: WARNING: line over 80 characters
>
> > +}
> > +
> > int adf_send_message(struct adf_etr_ring_data *ring, uint32_t *msg)
> > {
> > - if (atomic_add_return(1, ring->inflights) >
> > - ADF_MAX_INFLIGHTS(ring->ring_size, ring->msg_size)) {
> > + int limit = ADF_MAX_INFLIGHTS(ring->ring_size, ring->msg_size);
> > +
> > + if (atomic_read(ring->inflights) >= limit)
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> Can this be removed and leave only the condition below?
> Am I missing something here?
atomic_read is light, atomic_add_return is heavy. We may be busy-waiting
here, so I want to use the light instruction. Spinlocks do the same - when
they are spinning, they use just a light "read" instruction and when the
"read" instruction indicates that the spinlock is free, they execute the
read-modify-write instruction to actually acquire the lock.
> > +
> > + if (atomic_add_return(1, ring->inflights) > limit) {
> > atomic_dec(ring->inflights);
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
Mikulas
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
