Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] can: Add Nuvoton NCT6694 CAN support

Vincent Mailhol
2025-01-14T15:12:07Z

On 14/01/2025 at 19:46, Ming Yu wrote:
> Dear Vincent,
>
> Thank you for your reply,
> I'll add comments to describe these locks in the next patch,
>
> Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> 於 2025年1月14日 週二 下午4:06寫道：

(...)

>>> +static int nct6694_can_get_berr_counter(const struct net_device *ndev,
>>> + struct can_berr_counter *bec)
>>> +{
>>> + struct nct6694_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
>>> + struct nct6694_can_event *evt = priv->rx->event;
>>> + struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd;
>>> + u8 mask = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_REC | NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_TEC;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + guard(mutex)(&priv->lock);
>>> +
>>> + cmd_hd = (struct nct6694_cmd_header) {
>>> + .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
>>> + .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT,
>>> + .sel = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_SEL(priv->can_idx, mask),
>>> + .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(priv->rx->event))
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + ret = nct6694_read_msg(priv->nct6694, &cmd_hd, evt);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> You are holding the priv->lock mutex before calling
>> nct6694_read_msg(). But nct6694_read_msg() then holds the
>> nct6694->access_lock mutex. Why do you need a double mutex here? What
>> kind of race scenario are you trying to prevent here?
>>
>
> I think priv->lock need to be placed here to prevent priv->rx from
> being assigned by other functions, and nct6694->access_lock ensures
> that the nct6694_read_msg() transaction is completed.
> But in this case, cmd_hd does not need to be in priv->lock's scope.

So, the only reason for holding priv->lock is because priv->rx is shared
between functions.

struct nct6694_can_event is only 8 bytes. And you only need it for the
life time of the function so it can simply be declared on the stack:

struct nct6694_can_event evt;

and with this, no more need to hold the lock. And the same thing also
applies to the other functions.

Here, by trying to optimize the memory for only a few bytes, you are
getting a huge penalty on the performance by putting locks on all the
functions. This is not a good tradeoff.

>>> + bec->rxerr = evt[priv->can_idx].rec;
>>> + bec->txerr = evt[priv->can_idx].tec;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol