From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f170.google.com (mail-pf1-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ABF01547F2 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2025 01:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754791172; cv=none; b=V9xfUmZXPlHMzYpRWfELG7L5xANl4RKee2SsNdyGbrJfIchdIxmmN3JRJ9as/9xSVh0h0AeeGnSrhwc1ksOf+zdinXE04vwYD9oCqobHaixTt3LmQt4wuYW9IDFOExgFJpG4VZdtCdsaf2Rq4swQva81yS/R5bssOkEYMbkM9EY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754791172; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qlrKx2M8TZtGZwjSkB8IuXtRhhT1GxtXi9jWa6jR08E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DliQ9lfP0ekTrcXSxOMmKNUThHonn6z2fArgzSCPNcMiPbFdZSaM+FTWWj9TYMF40Qu/6kJdFz04o1jSSmK+U5ayk2wj9GnvwfAKvjpd3KYEYYOUHw4cRCLvKlTsnHLBXTcYSuWsVN2dDwHSaQR7zTeMQwtV04nQ/1izuNa3iWg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dama.to; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dama.to; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dama-to.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@dama-to.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=BjTMkCr8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dama.to Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dama.to Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dama-to.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@dama-to.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="BjTMkCr8" Received: by mail-pf1-f170.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-76858e9e48aso3055416b3a.2 for ; Sat, 09 Aug 2025 18:59:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dama-to.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1754791171; x=1755395971; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eF8pKdQjv4NqMNkyPa2+QQHFgfWeKJGjpAH9U0wK9Zw=; b=BjTMkCr8FB3QbJ4ZRRC1qb8vblTmcRi9Lvta9wvXmuqsZmZ6xhtgy+CVUyAcXmKxAy 5bcJbcdarfNMhMUN2kHpuzzkiY0OR0j6w80ogF/PocTJCWrOaYGRmTNxHG4MdYMSaQZF SFrjvxg2nLEsJmJTXeNnEMIrz7u5ZAoOUPtire7M99i8/l1qxPlLwSbsDtjMS+869BGd wd8bL8y3JSIsTOtshT2xoAmuBqbt62l+dDG/O2Lh+7uk+fqm9cQwVTePh3KaGZQVKVK5 JVqGTHUajbq8llh48XMOQtdALMfQVXasPSnTISaxIYe/iC5S/j5UrF3SYNYQyuRg4rdU SArg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1754791171; x=1755395971; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eF8pKdQjv4NqMNkyPa2+QQHFgfWeKJGjpAH9U0wK9Zw=; b=hV3nbbRObPxlm7HlGFF6f5n6wK219iFVLzaCwGPeYpVUJxUwmFaRkcJlSy4iLw6sRy xUhF/a6Pz5GnnCq8sQIXTBklVd2CZzF7Ka20M++OYTMw2IZevIkrK3TeyNoGwcjFLzzu BeYN0/eeenxap62ktxB1Ez73rDOzTMXjzvjINhjkJ5YZssAzcfKbZqAYhBewPgx2we0K Dw0zLu7tqMCC3+UGnXkRRxxe1zEw9ALOXsCBjm994Pwunp0JmEgxUzF4eky/qvIXyRGv jmOJpIpt40S/Qk7vClgvmjTPDmD/V0eIGsPyW4scy6qdlIXJrx/NvQw3YXQlcxzAryPs nmHA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXHPjGlHKyEoHTgvfIRUpA6SjOn5OIByJdfTmdsaEQKljLK9N69p7zNL2uHy7i1z93H71YSHVnf6W9Ue9SxgwQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzVyr6J1Gw0RiVDFBcZTsRIAxZm8wGRdTmq/brGkpa5E4t9o3r2 zRZloOLUZQBsgWs/yOPPTC9TxmEiRugApRxe61EXm2GgixQkN/78m81odzcdNjoH1/GcY6N6z1t 8ovvQeJI= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuvhzfAFuw0HPSfyvCnUEjn4oz+aXrqpXktYXTAYnThkQkQob93BwoWLwCboxH S2++4dF6IWMeTGpdU2vULTm14oF3xvPU0j0+DP9tEes/ebtS8asQsEj6zk9XhEJi9tBHANDKcPJ pQdJ6cEhe0D0OVoOnJwThe8VzJ7KBpVHR6fDaaXsXdlrA+CtHkgXYM3w4TmCiikO4waDS5r8V38 fJ4RvcqSbYw+yFwZo9pwUk6pVlg0VmeMh8Ez+wKxs15mrKdI6xpPicozb89QL4OsxRgXoD1txNU oIwnc1NcZnGB+/15p7jZWt+Wc5F8nQt7HsEtsIz2z6iKOJFCdTurTZnOBSrkXJglLFsuxqH+RUf ik7bFyzXJnXCytYv+uvtKUg4bWxQN4PjMFITop//rBrhvKja7JDZncgJLpQBUIoizy48gZJt8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH/pB2pixkyF2YL9XgfIkRFvD7SRAfHbBOLp/SPkXfC/H0pz69TSJ/YVnczmdr9I/SN4PereA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:6da9:b0:23d:3513:935c with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-2405500059dmr10796388637.6.1754791170739; Sat, 09 Aug 2025 18:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MacBook-Air.local (c-73-222-201-58.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.222.201.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-76be629a1b6sm19735996b3a.11.2025.08.09.18.59.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 09 Aug 2025 18:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 18:59:27 -0700 From: Joe Damato To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, skhawaja@google.com, sdf@fomichev.me, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/3] net: prevent deadlocks and mis-configuration with per-NAPI threaded config Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Joe Damato , Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, skhawaja@google.com, sdf@fomichev.me, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20250809001205.1147153-1-kuba@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250809001205.1147153-1-kuba@kernel.org> On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 05:12:02PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Running the test added with a recent fix on a driver with persistent > NAPI config leads to a deadlock. The deadlock is fixed by patch 3, > patch 2 is I think a more fundamental problem with the way we > implemented the config. > > I hope the fix makes sense, my own thinking is definitely colored > by my preference (IOW how the per-queue config RFC was implemented). Maybe it's too late now, but I am open to revisiting how the whole per-queue NAPI config works after a conversation we had a couple months ago (IIRC ?). I think you had proposed something that made sense to me at the time (although I can't recall what that was or what thread that was in).