Re: [PATCH] ath10k: transmit queued frames after waking queues

[Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 08:50:23AM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:36:56PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > A spin lock does have the advantage of ordering: memory operations issued
> > before the spin_unlock_bh() will be completed before the spin_unlock_bh()
> > operation has completed.
> > 
> > However, ath10k_htt_tx_dec_pending() was called earlier in the same function,
> > which decreases htt->num_pending_tx, so that write will be completed before
> > our read. That is the only ordering we care about here (if we should call
> > ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() or not).
> 
> Sure.  I also understand that reading inside a lock and operating on the
> value outside the lock isn't really the definition of synchronization
> (doesn't really matter in this case though).
> 
> I was just suggesting that the implicit memory barrier in the spin unlock
> that we are already paying for would be sufficient here too, and it matches
> the semantic of "tx fields under tx_lock."  On the other hand, maybe it's
> just me, but I tend to look askance at just-in-case READ_ONCEs sprinkled
> about.

I agree, because of the implicit memory barrier from spin_unlock_bh(),
READ_ONCE shouldn't really be needed in this case.

I think that it's a good thing to be critical of all "just-in-case" things,
however, it's not always that obvious if you actually need READ_ONCE or not.

E.g. you might need to use it even when you are holding a spin_lock.

Some people recommend to use it for all concurrent non-read-only shared memory
accesses: https://github.com/google/ktsan/wiki/READ_ONCE-and-WRITE_ONCE

Is there a better guideline somewhere..?


Kind regards,
Niklas

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k