aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 17 May 2022 09:19:29 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:28 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > > > @@ -84,7 +118,7 @@ void ieee802154_xmit_complete(struct ieee802154_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > > hw->phy->sifs_period * NSEC_PER_USEC,
> > > > HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> > > > } else {
> > > > - ieee802154_wake_queue(hw);
> > > > + ieee802154_release_queue(local);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
> > > > @@ -98,7 +132,7 @@ void ieee802154_xmit_error(struct ieee802154_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > > struct ieee802154_local *local = hw_to_local(hw);
> > > >
> > > > local->tx_result = reason;
> > > > - ieee802154_wake_queue(hw);
> > > > + ieee802154_release_queue(local);
> > > > dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> > > > atomic_dec(&hw->phy->ongoing_txs);
> > >
> > > I am pretty sure that will end in a scheduling while atomic warning
> > > with hwsim. If you don't hit it you have the wrong config, you need to
> > > enable such warnings and have the right preemption model setting.
> >
> > I was using the "desktop" kernel preemption model (voluntary), I've
> > switched to CONFIG_PREEMPT ("Preemptible kernel (Low-latency)"),
> > and enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. You are right that we should use
> > a spinlock instead of a mutex here. However I don't think disabling
> > IRQs is necessary, so I'll switch to spin_(un)lock() calls.
> >
>
> In my opinion it's necessary for the ifs hrtimer. Normal
> spin_lock/unlock is not the right fit here.
You're right, I forgot about hrtimers.
Thanks,
Miquèl
