Re: [RESEND PATCH 4/4] can: c_can: cache frames to operate as a true FIFO

Il 06/08/2021 11:25 Marc Kleine-Budde [off-list ref] ha scritto:

 
On 05.08.2021 22:16:06, Dario Binacchi wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

--- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.h
+++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.h

@@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ struct c_can_priv {
 	atomic_t sie_pending;
 	unsigned long tx_dir;
 	int last_status;
+	spinlock_t tx_lock;

What does the spin lock protect?

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -483,7 +469,11 @@ static netdev_tx_t c_can_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	if (c_can_get_tx_free(tx_ring) == 0)
 		netif_stop_queue(dev);
 
-	obj = idx + priv->msg_obj_tx_first;
+	spin_lock_bh(&priv->tx_lock);

What does the spin_lock protect? The ndo_start_xmit function is properly
serialized by the networking core.

The spin_lock protects the access to the IF_TX interface.

How? You only use the spin_lock in c_can_start_xmit(), but not anywhere
else.

quoted

Enabling the transmission of cached messages occur inside interrupt

The call chain is c_can_poll() -> c_can_do_tx(), and c_can_poll() is
called from NAPI, which is not the IRQ handler.

quoted

and the use of the IF_RX interface, which would avoid the use of the
spinlock, has not been validated by the tests.

What do you mean be has not been validated?

It's been a while since I submitted the series and I certainly got confused.

The driver already uses IF_RX to avoid concurrent access in
c_can_do_tx() for c_can_inval_tx_object() [1], why not use IF_RX for
c_can_object_put(), too?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210302215435.18286-4-dariobin@libero.it (local)

Right!

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |