Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: add flag to protect napi operation to avoid dead loop hang for SDIO

[Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>]

On 2020-08-24 19:15, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2020-08-24 18:03, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:10 PM Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2020-08-24 16:35, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It happened "Kernel panic - not syncing: hung_task: blocked tasks"
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> test simulate crash and ifconfig down/rmmod meanwhile.
>> >> >>
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>> >> > Even though your DUT is SDIO based we should be doing this in general
>> >> > for all, no?
>> >> > core_restart + hif_stop is common to all.
>> >> this patch does not have core_restart.
>> > I was referring to the combination which is causing the issue.
>> >
>> >> I dit not hit the issue for others bus(PCIe,SNOC...), so I can not
>> >> change them with a
>> >> assumption they also have this issue.
>> > But that doesn't make sense, the combination is being hit for others
>> > also.
>> > (they should also endup calling napi_disable twice?) or they are using
>> > some other check to avoid this (doesn't appear so from a quick look at
>> > the
>> > code).
>> Because I only use SDIO, I did not use others BUS, so I did not hit 
>> the
>> issue
>> on other BUS.
> I understand, my point was based on the description the issue looks 
> independent
> of the BUS type, so, the fix should also be generic. I understand that
> your testing
> is only focused on SDIO, but we should have a generic fix and probably 
> use
> communities help to get it tested rather than fixing SDIO only.
I checked the ath10k, only sdio.c, snoc.c, pci.c have used napi.
I think it can change to move the 
napi_synchronize/napi_disable/napi_enable from
sido.c/snoc.c/pci.c to ath10k_core.ko as below:
void ath10k_core_napi_enable(struct ath10k *ar)
{
        if (!ar->napi_enabled) {
                napi_enable(&ar->napi);
                ar->napi_enabled = true;
        }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath10k_core_napi_enable);

void ath10k_core_napi_disable_sync(struct ath10k *ar)
{
        if (ar->napi_enabled) {
                napi_synchronize(&ar->napi);
                napi_disable(&ar->napi);
                ar->napi_enabled = false;
        }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath10k_core_napi_disable_sync);

is it appropriate?
...