* [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
@ 2023-12-11 13:10 Daniel Vacek
2023-12-11 13:22 ` Leon Romanovsky
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Vacek @ 2023-12-11 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe, Leon Romanovsky; +Cc: linux-rdma, linux-kernel, Daniel Vacek
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>
---
drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
index 5b3154503bf4..ae2c05806dcc 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
@@ -536,17 +536,17 @@ static int ipoib_mcast_join(struct net_device *dev, struct ipoib_mcast *mcast)
multicast = ib_sa_join_multicast(&ipoib_sa_client, priv->ca, priv->port,
&rec, comp_mask, GFP_KERNEL,
ipoib_mcast_join_complete, mcast);
- spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
if (IS_ERR(multicast)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(multicast);
ipoib_warn(priv, "ib_sa_join_multicast failed, status %d\n", ret);
+ spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
/* Requeue this join task with a backoff delay */
__ipoib_mcast_schedule_join_thread(priv, mcast, 1);
clear_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_FLAG_BUSY, &mcast->flags);
spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
complete(&mcast->done);
- spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
}
+ spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
return 0;
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
2023-12-11 13:10 [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning Daniel Vacek
@ 2023-12-11 13:22 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-12-11 13:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leon Romanovsky @ 2023-12-11 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Vacek; +Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, linux-rdma, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 02:10:50PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>
Please fill some text in commit message.
Thanks
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> index 5b3154503bf4..ae2c05806dcc 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> @@ -536,17 +536,17 @@ static int ipoib_mcast_join(struct net_device *dev, struct ipoib_mcast *mcast)
> multicast = ib_sa_join_multicast(&ipoib_sa_client, priv->ca, priv->port,
> &rec, comp_mask, GFP_KERNEL,
> ipoib_mcast_join_complete, mcast);
> - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> if (IS_ERR(multicast)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(multicast);
> ipoib_warn(priv, "ib_sa_join_multicast failed, status %d\n", ret);
> + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> /* Requeue this join task with a backoff delay */
> __ipoib_mcast_schedule_join_thread(priv, mcast, 1);
> clear_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_FLAG_BUSY, &mcast->flags);
> spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
> complete(&mcast->done);
> - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> }
> + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
2023-12-11 13:22 ` Leon Romanovsky
@ 2023-12-11 13:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-12-11 14:09 ` Daniel Vacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2023-12-11 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Romanovsky; +Cc: Daniel Vacek, linux-rdma, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> Please fill some text in commit message.
Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > index 5b3154503bf4..ae2c05806dcc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > @@ -536,17 +536,17 @@ static int ipoib_mcast_join(struct net_device *dev, struct ipoib_mcast *mcast)
> > multicast = ib_sa_join_multicast(&ipoib_sa_client, priv->ca, priv->port,
> > &rec, comp_mask, GFP_KERNEL,
> > ipoib_mcast_join_complete, mcast);
> > - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > if (IS_ERR(multicast)) {
> > ret = PTR_ERR(multicast);
> > ipoib_warn(priv, "ib_sa_join_multicast failed, status %d\n", ret);
> > + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > /* Requeue this join task with a backoff delay */
> > __ipoib_mcast_schedule_join_thread(priv, mcast, 1);
> > clear_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_FLAG_BUSY, &mcast->flags);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > complete(&mcast->done);
> > - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
It is super weird to unlock just around complete.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
2023-12-11 13:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
@ 2023-12-11 14:09 ` Daniel Vacek
2023-12-11 15:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Vacek @ 2023-12-11 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe; +Cc: Leon Romanovsky, linux-rdma, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> > Please fill some text in commit message.
>
> Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
Oh, sorry. I did not mention it but there's no particular reason
really. The @Subject says it all. There should be no logical or
functional change other than reducing the span of that critical
section. In other words, just nitpicking, not a big deal.
While checking the code (and past changes) related to the other issue
I also sent today I just noticed the way 08bc327629cbd added the
spin_lock before returning from this function and it appeared to me
it's clearer the way I'm proposing here.
Honestly, I was not looking into why the lock is released for that
completion. And I'm not changing that logic.
If this complete() can be called with priv->lock held, the cleanup
would look different, of course.
That said, If you'd like to keep this patch I can send a v2 with the
above details in the message body. Otherwise feel free to drop this.
--nX
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > > index 5b3154503bf4..ae2c05806dcc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_multicast.c
> > > @@ -536,17 +536,17 @@ static int ipoib_mcast_join(struct net_device *dev, struct ipoib_mcast *mcast)
> > > multicast = ib_sa_join_multicast(&ipoib_sa_client, priv->ca, priv->port,
> > > &rec, comp_mask, GFP_KERNEL,
> > > ipoib_mcast_join_complete, mcast);
> > > - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > > if (IS_ERR(multicast)) {
> > > ret = PTR_ERR(multicast);
> > > ipoib_warn(priv, "ib_sa_join_multicast failed, status %d\n", ret);
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > > /* Requeue this join task with a backoff delay */
> > > __ipoib_mcast_schedule_join_thread(priv, mcast, 1);
> > > clear_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_FLAG_BUSY, &mcast->flags);
> > > spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
> > > complete(&mcast->done);
> > > - spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
>
> It is super weird to unlock just around complete.
>
> Jason
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
2023-12-11 14:09 ` Daniel Vacek
@ 2023-12-11 15:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-12-11 16:08 ` Daniel Vacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2023-12-11 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Vacek; +Cc: Leon Romanovsky, linux-rdma, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:09:13PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > > Please fill some text in commit message.
> >
> > Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
>
> Oh, sorry. I did not mention it but there's no particular reason
> really. The @Subject says it all. There should be no logical or
> functional change other than reducing the span of that critical
> section. In other words, just nitpicking, not a big deal.
>
> While checking the code (and past changes) related to the other issue
> I also sent today I just noticed the way 08bc327629cbd added the
> spin_lock before returning from this function and it appeared to me
> it's clearer the way I'm proposing here.
>
> Honestly, I was not looking into why the lock is released for that
> completion. And I'm not changing that logic.
>
> If this complete() can be called with priv->lock held, the cleanup
> would look different, of course.
complete() can be called under spinlocks just fine, AFAIK..
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
2023-12-11 15:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
@ 2023-12-11 16:08 ` Daniel Vacek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Vacek @ 2023-12-11 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe; +Cc: Leon Romanovsky, linux-rdma, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:09:13PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please fill some text in commit message.
> > >
> > > Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
> >
> > Oh, sorry. I did not mention it but there's no particular reason
> > really. The @Subject says it all. There should be no logical or
> > functional change other than reducing the span of that critical
> > section. In other words, just nitpicking, not a big deal.
> >
> > While checking the code (and past changes) related to the other issue
> > I also sent today I just noticed the way 08bc327629cbd added the
> > spin_lock before returning from this function and it appeared to me
> > it's clearer the way I'm proposing here.
> >
> > Honestly, I was not looking into why the lock is released for that
> > completion. And I'm not changing that logic.
> >
> > If this complete() can be called with priv->lock held, the cleanup
> > would look different, of course.
>
> complete() can be called under spinlocks just fine, AFAIK..
Yup, agreed. We ended up removing the lock completely in this function
with the other patch. This patch can be discarded.
--nX
> Jason
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-12-11 16:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-12-11 13:10 [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning Daniel Vacek
2023-12-11 13:22 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-12-11 13:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-12-11 14:09 ` Daniel Vacek
2023-12-11 15:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-12-11 16:08 ` Daniel Vacek
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.