Thread (15 messages) flat view 15 messages, 4 authors, 2016-08-09

Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: davinci_cpdma: reduce time holding chan->lock in cpdma_chan_submit

From: Uwe Kleine-König <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-27 07:12:33
Also in: linux-omap

Hello,

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:25:58PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 07/26/2016 03:02 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
quoted
Allocating and preparing a dma descriptor doesn't need to happen under
the channel's lock. So do this before taking the channel's lock. The only
down side is that the dma descriptor might be allocated even though the
channel is about to be stopped. This is unlikely though.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
index 5ffa04a306c6..ba3462707ae3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
@@ -542,24 +542,10 @@ int cpdma_chan_submit(struct cpdma_chan *chan, void *token, void *data,
 	u32				mode;
 	int				ret = 0;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);
-
-	if (chan->state == CPDMA_STATE_TEARDOWN) {
-		ret = -EINVAL;
-		goto unlock_ret;
-	}
-
-	if (chan->count >= chan->desc_num)	{
-		chan->stats.desc_alloc_fail++;
-		ret = -ENOMEM;
-		goto unlock_ret;
-	}
I'm not sure this is right thing to do. This check is expected to be strict
and means "channel has exhausted the available descriptors, so further descs allocation does not allowed".
I developed this patch basing on a 4.4 kernel which doesn't have
742fb20fd4c7 ("net: ethernet: ti: cpdma: switch to use genalloc"). There
my patch is more obviously correct. As currently chan->count is
protected by chan->lock we must hold the lock for this check. If a
failing check means we must not call cpdma_desc_alloc in the first
place, that's bad.

But I'm not sure this is the case here. After all cpdma_desc_alloc
doesn't do anything relevant for the hardware, right?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help