From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lj1-x243.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::243]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.2 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iIHte-0003vr-Ma for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:45:20 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-x243.google.com with SMTP id y3so3724684ljj.6 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: switch to ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni From: Erik Stromdahl References: <20190617200140.6189-1-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> <20190617200140.6189-2-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> <87eezw660r.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <19f8023a-1943-9bf5-9a59-a7643f7692bf@eero.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 21:45:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Peter Oh , Kalle Valo Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/9/19 9:23 PM, Erik Stromdahl wrote: > > > On 10/1/19 7:13 PM, Peter Oh wrote: >> >> On 10/1/19 4:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Erik Stromdahl writes: >>> >>>> Since ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() can be called from process context, we >>>> must explicitly disable softirqs before the call into mac80211. >>>> >>>> By calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() instead of ieee80211_tx_dequeue() >>>> we make sure softirqs are always disabled even in the case when >>>> ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() is called from process context. >>>> >>>> Calling ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() with softirq's already disabled >>>> (e.g., from softirq context) should be safe as the local_bh_disable() >>>> and local_bh_enable() functions (called from ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni) >>>> are fully reentrant. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl >>> I already applied this, but I still want to check _why_ you are changing >>> this? Is it that you want to call ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() from a >>> workqueue in sdio.c in a future patch, or what? Because at the moment me >>> and Johannes were not able to find where this is called in process >>> context. >>> > SDIO irqs are threaded irqs (at least on my iMX6 board) and hence process context. > I will see if I can find a trace that shows the call chain more exactly. > I found this backtrace in a log file: (it does not show the call to ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni(), but it shows that ath10k_sdio_irq_handler() is called from process context) irq/62-mmc1-65 [000] .... 785.261081: ath10k_mac_op_wake_tx_queue <-ieee80211_queue_skb irq/62-mmc1-65 [000] .... 785.261090: => ieee80211_queue_skb => __ieee80211_subif_start_xmit => ieee80211_subif_start_xmit => dev_hard_start_xmit => __dev_queue_xmit => dev_queue_xmit => ip_finish_output2 => ip_finish_output => ip_output => ip_local_out => ip_queue_xmit => tcp_transmit_skb => tcp_write_xmit => __tcp_push_pending_frames => tcp_rcv_established => tcp_v4_do_rcv => tcp_v4_rcv => ip_local_deliver_finish => ip_local_deliver => ip_rcv_finish => ip_rcv => __netif_receive_skb_core => __netif_receive_skb => netif_receive_skb_internal => netif_receive_skb => ieee80211_deliver_skb => ieee80211_rx_handlers => ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle => ieee80211_rx_napi => ath10k_htt_t2h_msg_handler => ath10k_htt_htc_t2h_msg_handler => ath10k_sdio_mbox_rxmsg_pending_handler => ath10k_sdio_irq_handler <- ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() is called from here => process_sdio_pending_irqs => sdio_run_irqs => sdhci_thread_irq => irq_thread_fn => irq_thread => kthread => ret_from_fork => 0 From ath10k_sdio_irq_handler(), the call chain down to ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() looks like this: ath10k_sdio_irq_handler() => ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() => ath10k_mac_schedule_txq() => ath10k_mac_tx_push_txq() => ieee80211_tx_dequeue_ni() > >> It seems Johannes wants to fix it in mac80211. >> >> [PATCH v2] mac80211: keep BHs disabled while calling drv_tx_wake_queue() >> >> Drivers typically expect this, as it's the case for almost all cases >> where this is called (i.e. from the TX path). Also, the code in mac80211 >> itself (if the driver calls ieee80211_tx_dequeue()) expects this as it >> uses this_cpu_ptr() without additional protection. >> _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k