On 11/28/2012 03:29 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 03:22 PM, Henrik Bork Steffensen wrote:
>> On 11/27/2012 05:31 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2012 03:11 PM, Henrik Bork Steffensen wrote:
>>> Hm, could you show your diffs.
>> Do You mean a diff on these 7 lines, or a diff to the original file?
>>
>>>> I this case "at91_poll" is basicly the same as "c_can_poll", in both
>>>> cases they call the function with the spinlock in the rx chain.
>>> You don't need to protect against RX. Sorry, forgot that. On the c_can
>>> this is necessary due to concurrent accesses to the same message RAM.
>> Ok, I think that at91_can.c might have an issue in register access.
>> I am not sure, but I will look into it.
>>
>>>> Looking at the patch Wolfgang sugested, I became uncertain of what this
>>>> patch actually wants to protect.
>>>> Is it the registers in the cpu can interface? (mailboxes and control
>>>> regs, i don't know the hw)
>>> As mentioned above, on the c_can there is definitely a race with the
>>> message ram due to the busy wait after accessing it. See:
>>>
>>>     http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.6.8/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c#L237
>>>
>>>> Or is it the potential race between "c_can_start_xmit" and
>>>> "c_can_do_tx" ?
>>>> Or even the access to the net api?
>>>>
>>>> Would someone care to explain?
>>> I will try. In at91_start_xmit, if we get interrupted
>>>
>>>      if (!(at91_read(priv, AT91_MSR(get_tx_next_mb(priv)))&
>>>                 AT91_MSR_MRDY) ||
>>>                (priv->tx_next&   get_next_mask(priv)) == 0)
>>>
>>>          /* HERE */
>>>
>>>          netif_stop_queue(dev);
>>>
>>> and then at91_irq_tx() is called executing netif_wake_queue() we may end
>>> up with a stopped tx queue. But I'm not yet 100% sure.
>> Ok, thanks a lot.
>>
>> In my case i changed the driver to only use one mailbox for transmission.
>> Which means that the "net_stop_queue" will be called every time a packet
>> is tx'ed.
>> And the "net_wake_queue" will be called after the packet is actually
>> transmitted.
> In your first mail you've written that using only one mailbox increases
> the probability for a lockup.
>
>> This is as far as i can see this is 100% safe, provided that no further
>> "ndo_start_xmit"
>> calls come before the wake_queue call.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, after removing the spin_lock from rx, it loads fine and seems to
>> work.
>> I will do a test with the suggested changes to the tx chain and get to
>> the list
>> if anything interesting appears.
>>
>> Thank You very much for Your help so far :-)
> Can you send me a diff of your current changes?

Hi,

Please note that i have not yet tested it for lockup.
So far i just did a simple rx/tx test.

Patch attached.
Expect large offsets in line numbers.

I have a few other small changes to at91_can.c which might be interesting.
I will get back with them, after checking them against a recent kernel 
version.

regards,
Henrik