From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4] lpc32xx: Added ethernet driver
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:53:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F55D099.5070006@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1330987524.2538.61.camel@bwh-desktop>
Hi Ben,
thank you for your review!
On 03/05/2012 11:45 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
>> +static int lpc_eth_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
>> +{
>> + struct netdata_local *pldat = container_of(napi,
>> + struct netdata_local, napi);
>> + struct net_device *ndev = pldat->ndev;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int rx_done = 0;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pldat->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + __lpc_handle_xmit(ndev);
>> + rx_done = __lpc_handle_recv(ndev, budget);
>> +
>> + if (rx_done < budget) {
>> + napi_complete(napi);
>> + lpc_eth_enable_int(pldat->net_base);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pldat->lock, flags);
>
> This is really sad. You implement NAPI but then take away most of the
> benefits of that by disabling interrupts.
>
> It looks like you could safely unlock pldat->lock before calling
> __lpc_handle_recv - nothing else manipulates RX queue state so no lock
> is required.
>
> As for the TX side, you can probably use the TX queue lock
> (__netif_tx_lock, __netif_tx_unlock) to serialise with
> lpc_eth_hard_start_xmit() and avoid taking pldat->lock in either
> __lpc_handle_xmit() or here.
Sounds reasonable, and will do it.
However, I implemented it from the example of
drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-velocity.c:velocity_poll() - is there a
good reason for doing it that way in the velocity driver or is it done
incorrectly there, also?
Thanks,
Roland
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, eilong@broadcom.com,
ian.campbell@citrix.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
w.sang@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kevin.wells@nxp.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
arnd@arndb.de, baruch@tkos.co.il, joe@perches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lpc32xx: Added ethernet driver
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:53:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F55D099.5070006@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1330987524.2538.61.camel@bwh-desktop>
Hi Ben,
thank you for your review!
On 03/05/2012 11:45 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
>> +static int lpc_eth_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
>> +{
>> + struct netdata_local *pldat = container_of(napi,
>> + struct netdata_local, napi);
>> + struct net_device *ndev = pldat->ndev;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int rx_done = 0;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pldat->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + __lpc_handle_xmit(ndev);
>> + rx_done = __lpc_handle_recv(ndev, budget);
>> +
>> + if (rx_done < budget) {
>> + napi_complete(napi);
>> + lpc_eth_enable_int(pldat->net_base);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pldat->lock, flags);
>
> This is really sad. You implement NAPI but then take away most of the
> benefits of that by disabling interrupts.
>
> It looks like you could safely unlock pldat->lock before calling
> __lpc_handle_recv - nothing else manipulates RX queue state so no lock
> is required.
>
> As for the TX side, you can probably use the TX queue lock
> (__netif_tx_lock, __netif_tx_unlock) to serialise with
> lpc_eth_hard_start_xmit() and avoid taking pldat->lock in either
> __lpc_handle_xmit() or here.
Sounds reasonable, and will do it.
However, I implemented it from the example of
drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-velocity.c:velocity_poll() - is there a
good reason for doing it that way in the velocity driver or is it done
incorrectly there, also?
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-06 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-05 21:40 [PATCH v4] lpc32xx: Added ethernet driver Roland Stigge
2012-03-05 21:40 ` Roland Stigge
2012-03-05 22:45 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-05 22:45 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 0:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-06 0:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-06 1:26 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 1:26 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 8:53 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-03-06 8:53 ` Roland Stigge
2012-03-06 12:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-06 12:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-06 10:43 ` [PATCH v4] lpc32xx: Added ethernet driver: smp_wmb() Roland Stigge
2012-03-06 10:43 ` Roland Stigge
2012-03-06 14:03 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 14:03 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 14:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-06 14:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-06 15:37 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-03-06 15:37 ` Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F55D099.5070006@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.