From: "Kalderon, Michal" <michal.kalde...@cavium.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:59:04 +0000
> From: Kalderon, Michal
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:05 PM
> To: David Miller
>>From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:17 PM
>>>> @@ -423,6 +423,41 @@ static void qed_ll2_rxq_parse_reg(struct qed_hwfn
>>>> *p_hwfn,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int
>>>> +qed_ll2_handle_slowpath(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn,
>>>> + struct qed_ll2_info *p_ll2_conn,
>>>> + union core_rx_cqe_union *p_cqe,
>>>> + unsigned long *p_lock_flags)
>>>> +{
>>>...
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p_rx->lock, *p_lock_flags);
>>>> +
>>>
>>>You can't drop this lock.
>>>
>>>Another thread can enter the loop of our caller and process RX queue
>>>entries, then we would return from here and try to process the same
>>>entries again.
>>
>>The lock is there to synchronize access to chains between
>>qed_ll2_rxq_completion
>>and qed_ll2_post_rx_buffer. qed_ll2_rxq_completion can't be called from
>>different threads, the light l2 uses the single sp status block we have.
>>The reason we release the lock is to avoid a deadlock where as a result of
>>calling
>>upper-layer driver it will potentially post additional rx-buffers.
>
> Dave, is there anything else needed from me on this?
> Noticed the series is still in "Changes Requested".
I'm still not convinced that the lock dropping is legitimate. What if a
spurious interrupt arrives?
If the execution path in the caller is serialized for some reason, why
are you using a spinlock and don't use that serialization for the mutual
exclusion necessary for these queue indexes?
