Vincent Mailhol [off-list ref] 於 2025年1月15日 週三 上午11:36寫道：

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static int nct6694_can_get_berr_counter(const struct net_device *ndev,
+                                       struct can_berr_counter *bec)
+{
+       struct nct6694_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
+       struct nct6694_can_event *evt = priv->rx->event;
+       struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd;
+       u8 mask = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_REC | NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_TEC;
+       int ret;
+
+       guard(mutex)(&priv->lock);
+
+       cmd_hd = (struct nct6694_cmd_header) {
+               .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
+               .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT,
+               .sel = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_SEL(priv->can_idx, mask),
+               .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(priv->rx->event))
+       };
+
+       ret = nct6694_read_msg(priv->nct6694, &cmd_hd, evt);
+       if (ret < 0)
+               return ret;

You are holding the priv->lock mutex before calling
nct6694_read_msg(). But nct6694_read_msg() then holds the
nct6694->access_lock mutex. Why do you need a double mutex here? What
kind of race scenario are you trying to prevent here?

I think priv->lock need to be placed here to prevent priv->rx from
being assigned by other functions, and nct6694->access_lock ensures
that the nct6694_read_msg() transaction is completed.
But in this case, cmd_hd does not need to be in priv->lock's scope.

So, the only reason for holding priv->lock is because priv->rx is shared
between functions.

struct nct6694_can_event is only 8 bytes. And you only need it for the
life time of the function so it can simply be declared on the stack:

        struct nct6694_can_event evt;

and with this, no more need to hold the lock. And the same thing also
applies to the other functions.

Here, by trying to optimize the memory for only a few bytes, you are
getting a huge penalty on the performance by putting locks on all the
functions. This is not a good tradeoff.

Since nct6694_read_msg()/nct6694_write_msg() process URBs via
usb_bulk_msg(), the transferred data must not be located on the stack.
For more details about allocating buffers for transmitting data,
please refer to the link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20241028-observant-gentle-doberman-0a2baa-mkl@pengutronix.de/ (local)

Ack, I forgot that you can not use stack memory in usb_bulk_msg().

Then, instead, you can either:

  - do a dynamic memory allocation directly in the function (good for
    when you are outside of the hot path, for example struct
    nct6694_can_setting)

  - and for the other structures which are part of the hot path
    (typically struct nct6694_can_frame) continue to use a dynamically
    allocated buffer stored in your priv but change the type of
    nct6694_can_tx and nct6694_can_rx from union to structures.

And no more overlaps, thus no more need for the mutex.

Understood, I will remove the unions and add members to private
structure in the next patch.
e.g.
struct nct6694_can_priv {
    struct can_priv can;
    ...
    struct nct6694_can_frame tx;
    struct nct6694_can_frame rx;
};
And do dynamic memory allocation for struct nct6694_can_setting and
struct nct6694_can_information.

In addition, I would like to know your thoughts on how struct
nct6694_can_event[2] should be handled?
It is utilized in both nct6694_can_get_berr_counter() and
nct6694_can_irq(), with the latter being called more frequently during
runtime.

Thanks,
Ming