On 2020-08-24 19:15, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2020-08-24 18:03, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:10 PM Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-08-24 16:35, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It happened "Kernel panic - not syncing: hung_task: blocked tasks"
>> >> when
>> >> test simulate crash and ifconfig down/rmmod meanwhile.
>> >>
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>> > Even though your DUT is SDIO based we should be doing this in general
>> > for all, no?
>> > core_restart + hif_stop is common to all.
>> this patch does not have core_restart.
> I was referring to the combination which is causing the issue.
>
>> I dit not hit the issue for others bus(PCIe,SNOC...), so I can not
>> change them with a
>> assumption they also have this issue.
> But that doesn't make sense, the combination is being hit for others
> also.
> (they should also endup calling napi_disable twice?) or they are using
> some other check to avoid this (doesn't appear so from a quick look at
> the
> code).
Because I only use SDIO, I did not use others BUS, so I did not hit
the
issue
on other BUS.
I understand, my point was based on the description the issue looks
independent
of the BUS type, so, the fix should also be generic. I understand that
your testing
is only focused on SDIO, but we should have a generic fix and probably
use
communities help to get it tested rather than fixing SDIO only.
I checked the ath10k, only sdio.c, snoc.c, pci.c have used napi.
I think it can change to move the
napi_synchronize/napi_disable/napi_enable from
sido.c/snoc.c/pci.c to ath10k_core.ko as below:
void ath10k_core_napi_enable(struct ath10k *ar)
{
if (!ar->napi_enabled) {
napi_enable(&ar->napi);
ar->napi_enabled = true;
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath10k_core_napi_enable);
void ath10k_core_napi_disable_sync(struct ath10k *ar)
{
if (ar->napi_enabled) {
napi_synchronize(&ar->napi);
napi_disable(&ar->napi);
ar->napi_enabled = false;
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath10k_core_napi_disable_sync);
is it appropriate?
...
