From: Kalderon, Michal
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:05 PM
To: David Miller
>From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:17 PM
>>> @@ -423,6 +423,41 @@ static void qed_ll2_rxq_parse_reg(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn,
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int
>>> +qed_ll2_handle_slowpath(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn,
>>> + struct qed_ll2_info *p_ll2_conn,
>>> + union core_rx_cqe_union *p_cqe,
>>> + unsigned long *p_lock_flags)
>>> +{
>>...
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p_rx->lock, *p_lock_flags);
>>> +
>>
>>You can't drop this lock.
>>
>>Another thread can enter the loop of our caller and process RX queue
>>entries, then we would return from here and try to process the same
>>entries again.
>
>The lock is there to synchronize access to chains between qed_ll2_rxq_completion
>and qed_ll2_post_rx_buffer. qed_ll2_rxq_completion can't be called from
>different threads, the light l2 uses the single sp status block we have.
>The reason we release the lock is to avoid a deadlock where as a result of calling
>upper-layer driver it will potentially post additional rx-buffers.
Dave, is there anything else needed from me on this?
Noticed the series is still in "Changes Requested".
thanks,
Michal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
