On 2020-08-25 16:24, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:11 AM Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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? ...Yes, this is perfect. One minor comment you can just do the check initially and return. if (ar->napi_enabled) return
Yes, I will change that. But who can test for SNOC and PCIe, I have tested with SDIO, it is OK. Govind, could you help to test SNOC? If no people test PCIe, I can also test it.
