Re: [v2,net-next,1/3] net: stmmac: enable multiple buffers

Às 2:09 PM de 3/24/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 07:10:59PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:27:08PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

quoted

Hi Thierry,

Yes, I can submit a patch for that.

After some more testing I did get a couple (roughly 2 out of 10)
successful boots (I'm booting over NFS using the EQOS), and given that
this pointed towards something related to uninitialized data, I changed
all occurrences of kmalloc_array() with kcalloc() and that I've gotten
10 successful reboots out of 10.

I still can't pinpoint why this is now necessary since previously the
kmalloc_array() was working just fine. The only thing I can think of is
that we're not properly initializing all fields of the new queue
structures, since that's the only thing that's changed with this commit.

I haven't investigated in detail yet, but from nothing so far has jumped
out at me.

Thierry

I have tried this change, but it made the situation worse on dwmac-sunxi (no network at all).

Joao, perhaps it's time to revert the faulty (and very huge) patch and rework it by splitting at least in two:
- adding RX queue / adding TX queue
And more if possible (like just adding an unused queue parameter) or a patch just for adding stmmac_free_tx_buffers() for example.
I think it will help to find where the problem is.

And this time I will test them before applying:)

Regards
Corentin Labbe

Yes, I agree, it is better to revert and leave the tree functional for all.

@David Miller:
The multiple-buffer patch introduced some problems in some setups that are being
hard to debug, so Corentin gave the idea of reverting the until
commit 7bac4e1ec3ca2342929a39638d615c6b672c27a0 (net: stmmac: stmmac interrupt
treatment prepared for multiple queues), which I fully agree.

In my setup is ok, but the idea is to have everyone's setup working :), so lets
break them into smaller pieces, and let's only apply them when everyone confirms
that is working ok in your setups, agree?

What is the typical mechanism for this? I send a patch reverting them?

Thanks,
Joao