lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5] net: ethernet: add driver for Aurora VLSI NB8800 Ethernet controller
Date
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:25:46 +0000
>
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>>
>>> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:17:07 +0000
>>>
>>>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:09:19 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:25:05 +0000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the TX DMA channel is idle when start_xmit is called, it can be
>>>>>>>> started immediately. Checking the DMA status and starting it if
>>>>>>>> idle has to be done atomically somehow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ->ndo_start_xmit() is guaranteed to be invoked atomically, protected
>>>>>>> by the TX queue spinlock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but the DMA needs to be restarted from some other context if it was
>>>>>> busy when start_xmit checked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can probably use the TXQ lock in the interrupt handler just for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> That seems a bit heavy-handed when the critical section for this is only
>>>> a tiny part of the start_xmit function.
>>>
>>> Then what synchornization primitive other than spin locks are you going
>>> to use for this?
>>>
>>> My point is that there is a spinlock the core code is _already_ taking,
>>> unconditionally, when ->ndo_start_xmit() executes. And you can therefore
>>> take advantage of that rather than using another lock of your own.
>>
>> I get that. But that remains locked for the duration of ndo_start_xmit()
>> whereas the part that needs to be synchronised with the DMA completion
>> IRQ handler is tiny. Having the IRQ handler spin for the duration of
>> ndo_start_xmit() seemed silly to me.
>
> I don't think it's silly at all.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the time spent spinning on a lock should
be kept as small as possible.

> And unless you can measure it making a difference, don't knock the idea.

I tried using netif_tx_lock() in the IRQ handler instead, and it locked
up solid. Clearly that was the wrong thing to do.

--
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-11 21:01    [W:1.785 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site