On 4/18/23 02:29, Crystal Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 11:09 -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> Hi Crystal,
>>
>> On 4/4/23 12:04, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> > On 4/4/23 11:33, Crystal Wood wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 10:55 -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > @@ -1456,11 +1456,11 @@ static void tqm_congestion_task(struct
>> > > > work_struct
>> > > > *work)
>> > > > union qm_mc_result *mcr;
>> > > > struct qman_cgr *cgr;
>> > > >
>> > > > - spin_lock_irq(&p->cgr_lock);
>> > > > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&p->cgr_lock);
>> > > > qm_mc_start(&p->p);
>> > > > qm_mc_commit(&p->p, QM_MCC_VERB_QUERYCONGESTION);
>> > > > if (!qm_mc_result_timeout(&p->p, &mcr)) {
>> > > > - spin_unlock_irq(&p->cgr_lock);
>> > > > + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->cgr_lock);
>> > >
>> > > qm_mc_result_timeout() spins with a timeout of 10 ms which is very
>> > > inappropriate for a raw lock. What is the actual expected upper bound?
>> >
>> > Hm, maybe we can move this qm_mc stuff outside cgr_lock? In most other
>> > places they're called without cgr_lock, which implies that its usage
>> > here is meant to synchronize against some other function.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions here? I think this should really be handled
>> in a follow-up patch. If you think this code is waiting too long in a raw
>> spinlock, the existing code can wait just as long with IRQs disabled.
>> This patch doesn't change existing system responsiveness.
>
> Well, AFAICT it expands the situations in which it happens from configuration
> codepaths to stuff like congestion handling. The proper fix would probably be
> to use some mechanism other than smp_call_function_single() to run code on the
> target cpu so that it can run with irqs enabled (or get confirmation that the
> actual worst case is short enough),
Well, we used to use a kthread/wait_for_completion before 96f413f47677
("soc/fsl/qbman: fix issue in qman_delete_cgr_safe()"). The commit
description there isn't very enlightening as to the actual bug, which is
why I CC's Madalin earlier. To be honest, I'm not really familiar with
the other options in the kernel.
> but barring that I guess at least acknowledge the situation in a
> comment?
Fine by me.
--Sean
