> 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > 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. Regards, Lorenzo > > > (since queued is update holding the lock) > Holding the lock on one thread without holding it on concurrent thread > is irrelevant, it's the same as not holding any lock at all. > > Stanislaw
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
