From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B49346AC5; Fri, 20 Mar 2026 07:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773992570; cv=none; b=onQl5DOOqfu/YOTDOULC77tDKXq8IX38TUXRmGaHufwTRuqdq6EkS8bmATULaTe1gvfzQRKHip/DcgffwdLpGgEdijoTV0mmWHMDh3TK6klpK7da8mGL/HmDva3qxvmfYy0oOZw9ygW3MCf8ReZ0Ib1T1+L7bgzQeD7NxO0KiPU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773992570; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0dCgqHkboWZHR92xSaIEcbRDFKUPTTR6UrXrj/yEGWc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jss+xCWRo5+krNewR+S4WYi8ty9SnNiH6s6G9vRbhPMlf2OAumQeo5+bukvuM5CEnzcHrosRg3PiXPKSxoNjz7GTbH6YuWgn3JmQItXP75b6HkUqLTOyrsnl2xOmfL8EyVuflmKnlsRMpx0eV2u1l49s+2VjGTMRQa3BzaGUzdA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=YIOJN0Gf; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=ElOMsQcl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="YIOJN0Gf"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="ElOMsQcl" Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:42:45 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1773992566; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MshMtRZGT4p94HZtMOMgVziJMH9fBPmkrzXedqSzHHE=; b=YIOJN0GfnmtovTSZTpcfroGQxeM66sH4Yrhdl5VvWOh9FQo4A7czDOMHHQohWcSBK7m3EP R8gV8i4mcq+sWBedgy9kV8liceIdoB91dmT2/axGJr90Jrq4HM/fvEcVlk2sAPCtOwmqXu dxeAeOQBbBtmmcNl5ATN1MP63yRgc/XdoTFIYJCRF76pdAY3g9+N0pU9HdHVOBrYTwAOoC R0EyuU/ONlLVqNLZCWSmugffS0I7rECLSfyn3mbeo9XotGS7gZA3z1RtmO2Gc+Bv5VEpE7 nYUZxplpa5Y0odolF7hNasjFNxtNc/UOwkyHqgduL1txuGG6UgKe/dLAm7m60A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1773992566; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MshMtRZGT4p94HZtMOMgVziJMH9fBPmkrzXedqSzHHE=; b=ElOMsQclM26S3Ox7+9FT1+gr1Xuy1uzdrOR2tkwl7bvcxy7j3TCN9R1jfYyQER4pH5rhWS 4gecTzup0E+/A9CQ== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Emil Tantilov Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, sgzhang@google.com, boolli@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net v2 2/3] idpf: improve locking around idpf_vc_xn_push_free() Message-ID: <20260320074245.f8dPuv4j@linutronix.de> References: <20260319211335.23236-1-emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> <20260319211335.23236-3-emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260319211335.23236-3-emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> On 2026-03-19 14:13:34 [-0700], Emil Tantilov wrote: > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c > index 582e0c8e9dc0..fbd5a15b015c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c > @@ -402,7 +402,9 @@ static void idpf_vc_xn_push_free(struct idpf_vc_xn_manager *vcxn_mngr, > struct idpf_vc_xn *xn) > { > idpf_vc_xn_release_bufs(xn); > + spin_lock_bh(&vcxn_mngr->xn_bm_lock); > set_bit(xn->idx, vcxn_mngr->free_xn_bm); If all of your bit manipulations happen under the same lock you could replace atomic set_bit()/ clear_bit() with their non-atomic counter parts __set_bit()/ __clear_bit(). The lockless alternative would be find_first_bit() + test_and_set_bit() loop. Probably another atomic op for salt. Using the __ is free with this change. > + spin_unlock_bh(&vcxn_mngr->xn_bm_lock); > } Sebastian