Re: [PATCH 2/3] remove irq_sem from e1000

["Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>]

Chris Snook wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
> 
> Remove unnecessary irq_sem accounting from e1000.  Tested with no problems.


the major problem with this is that one of the e1000 parts (82547) still 
requires the irq_sem. I doubt that you tested that card specifically. I'm still 
not convinced that this patch is therefore a good idea. the patch for ixgb is 
another thing, but for e1000 we definately want to keep the irq_sem around until 
we get some definitive testing on all adapters.

So, this patch will stay under suspicion a bit longer. Same for the ixgb version.

Auke


> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
> --
> diff -urp linux-2.6.20-git14.orig/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h
> linux-2.6.20-git14/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h
> --- linux-2.6.20-git14.orig/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h	2007-02-19
> 14:32:15.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.20-git14/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h	2007-02-19 15:07:37.000000000
> -0500
> @@ -252,7 +252,6 @@ struct e1000_adapter {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
>  	spinlock_t tx_queue_lock;
>  #endif
> -	atomic_t irq_sem;
>  	unsigned int total_tx_bytes;
>  	unsigned int total_tx_packets;
>  	unsigned int total_rx_bytes;
> diff -urp linux-2.6.20-git14.orig/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> linux-2.6.20-git14/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> --- linux-2.6.20-git14.orig/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c	2007-02-19
> 14:32:15.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.20-git14/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c	2007-02-19
> 15:09:28.000000000 -0500
> @@ -349,7 +349,6 @@ static void e1000_free_irq(struct e1000_
>  static void
>  e1000_irq_disable(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  {
> -	atomic_inc(&adapter->irq_sem);
>  	E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, IMC, ~0);
>  	E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(&adapter->hw);
>  	synchronize_irq(adapter->pdev->irq);
> @@ -363,10 +362,8 @@ e1000_irq_disable(struct e1000_adapter *
>  static void
>  e1000_irq_enable(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  {
> -	if (likely(atomic_dec_and_test(&adapter->irq_sem))) {
> -		E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, IMS, IMS_ENABLE_MASK);
> -		E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(&adapter->hw);
> -	}
> +	E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, IMS, IMS_ENABLE_MASK);
> +	E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(&adapter->hw);
>  }
> 
>  static void
> @@ -1336,7 +1333,6 @@ e1000_sw_init(struct e1000_adapter *adap
>  	spin_lock_init(&adapter->tx_queue_lock);
>  #endif
> 
> -	atomic_set(&adapter->irq_sem, 1);
>  	spin_lock_init(&adapter->stats_lock);
> 
>  	set_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->flags);
> @@ -3758,11 +3754,6 @@ e1000_intr_msi(int irq, void *data)
>  #endif
>  	uint32_t icr = E1000_READ_REG(hw, ICR);
> 
> -#ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
> -	/* read ICR disables interrupts using IAM, so keep up with our
> -	 * enable/disable accounting */
> -	atomic_inc(&adapter->irq_sem);
> -#endif
>  	if (icr & (E1000_ICR_RXSEQ | E1000_ICR_LSC)) {
>  		hw->get_link_status = 1;
>  		/* 80003ES2LAN workaround-- For packet buffer work-around on
> @@ -3832,13 +3823,6 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data)
>  	if (unlikely(hw->mac_type >= e1000_82571 &&
>  	             !(icr & E1000_ICR_INT_ASSERTED)))
>  		return IRQ_NONE;
> -
> -	/* Interrupt Auto-Mask...upon reading ICR,
> -	 * interrupts are masked.  No need for the
> -	 * IMC write, but it does mean we should
> -	 * account for it ASAP. */
> -	if (likely(hw->mac_type >= e1000_82571))
> -		atomic_inc(&adapter->irq_sem);
>  #endif
> 
>  	if (unlikely(icr & (E1000_ICR_RXSEQ | E1000_ICR_LSC))) {
> @@ -3862,7 +3846,6 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
>  	if (unlikely(hw->mac_type < e1000_82571)) {
>  		/* disable interrupts, without the synchronize_irq bit */
> -		atomic_inc(&adapter->irq_sem);
>  		E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, IMC, ~0);
>  		E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(hw);
>  	}
> @@ -3888,7 +3871,6 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data)
>  	 * de-assertion state.
>  	 */
>  	if (hw->mac_type == e1000_82547 || hw->mac_type == e1000_82547_rev_2) {
> -		atomic_inc(&adapter->irq_sem);
>  		E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, IMC, ~0);
>  	}
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html