On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 16:41 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Luca Coelho <l...@coelho.fi> writes:
>
> > From: Naftali Goldstein <naftali.goldst...@intel.com>
> >
> > Consider the following flow:
> > 1. Driver starts to sync the rx queues due to a delba.
> > mvm->queue_sync_cookie=1.
> > This rx-queues-sync is synchronous, so it doesn't increment the
> > cookie until all rx queues handle the notification from FW.
> > 2. During this time, driver starts to sync rx queues due to nssn sync
> > required.
> > The cookie's value is still 1, but it doesn't matter since this
> > rx-queue-sync is non-synchronous so in the notification handler the
> > cookie is ignored.
> > What _does_ matter is that this flow increments the cookie to 2
> > immediately.
> > Remember though that the FW won't start servicing this command until
> > it's done with the previous one.
> > 3. FW is still handling the first command, so it sends a notification
> > with internal_notif->sync=1, and internal_notif->cookie=0, which
> > triggers a WARN_ONCE.
> >
> > The solution for this race is to only use the mvm->queue_sync_cookie in
> > case of a synchronous sync-rx-queues. This way in step 2 the cookie's
> > value won't change so we avoid the WARN.
> >
> > The commit in the "fixes" field is the first commit to introduce
> > non-synchronous sending of this command to FW.
>
> But I don't see a Fixes field anywhere :)
Hmmm, good catch. My script should have added it. One more thing to
check... *sigh*
This is the aforementioned commit:
Fixes: 3c514bf831ac ("iwlwifi: mvm: add a loose synchronization of the NSSN
across Rx queues")
I'll add it and include it when I send the pull-req.
Thanks!
--
Cheers,
Luca.
