On 2019-03-21 10:02, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 05:23:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:58:13PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:09:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> > > > > > Similar to pci counterpart, reduce locking in mt76u_tx_tasklet since
>> > > > > > q->head is managed just in mt76u_tx_tasklet and q->queued is updated
>> > > > > > holding q->lock
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
>> > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
>> > > > > > index ac03acdae279..8cd70c32d77a 100644
>> > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
>> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/usb.c
>> > > > > > @@ -634,29 +634,33 @@ static void mt76u_tx_tasklet(unsigned long data)
>> > > > > > int i;
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > for (i = 0; i < IEEE80211_NUM_ACS; i++) {
>> > > > > > + u32 n_queued = 0, n_sw_queued = 0;
>> > > > > > +
>> > > > > > sq = &dev->q_tx[i];
>> > > > > > q = sq->q;
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - spin_lock_bh(&q->lock);
>> > > > > > - while (true) {
>> > > > > > + while (q->queued > n_queued) {
>> > > > > > buf = &q->entry[q->head].ubuf;
>> > > > > > - if (!buf->done || !q->queued)
>> > > > > > + if (!buf->done)
>> > > > > > break;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm still thinking if this is safe or not. Is somewhat tricky to
>> > > > > read variable outside the lock because in such case there is no time
>> > > > > guarantee when variable written on one CPU gets updated value on
>> > > > > different CPU. And for USB is not only q->queued but also buf->done.
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Stanislaw,
>> > > >
>> > > > I was wondering if this is safe as well, but q->queued is updated holding q->lock
>> > > > and I guess it will ensure to not overlap tx and status code path.
>> > >
>> > > Overlap will not happen, at worst what can happen is q->queued will be
>> > > smaller on tx_tasklet than on tx_queue_skb.
>> >
>> > Yes, that is the point :)
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Regarding buf->done, it is already updated without holding the lock in mt76u_complete_tx
>> > >
>> > > That's actually a bug, but it's not important, if tx_tasklet will not
>> > > see updated buf->done <- true value by mt76u_complete_tx on different
>> > > cpu, it will not complete skb. It will be done on next tx_tasklet iteration.
>> > > Worse thing would be opposite situation.
>> >
>> > Can this really occur?
>> I was thinking about that and yes it can occur. If q->queued and
>> buf->done writes/read will be reordered by CPUs. To prevent that you
>> will need to use smp_wmb/smp_rmb pair, but it's just simpler and more
>> convenient to use lock.
>
> good point, I will go through it.
Another simple solution would be to set buf->done = false in
mt76u_tx_tasklet after tx_complete_skb instead of doing it at enqueue time.
- Felix
