From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFT] 2.6.4 - epic100 napi Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:14:23 -0500 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <4060544F.2090702@pobox.com> References: <20040320152109.A31118@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <405DDDC6.7030007@pobox.com> <8765cvmyaq.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Francois Romieu , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: OGAWA Hirofumi In-Reply-To: <8765cvmyaq.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Jeff Garzik writes: > > >>>+ if (work_done < orig_budget) { >>>+ unsigned long flags; >>>+ int status; >>>+ >>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&ep->napi_lock, flags); >>>+ epic_napi_irq_on(dev, ep); >>>+ __netif_rx_complete(dev); >>>+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ep->napi_lock, flags); >>>+ >>>+ status = inl(ioaddr + INTSTAT); >>>+ if (status & EpicNapiEvent) { >>>+ epic_napi_irq_off(dev, ep); >>>+ goto rx_action; >>>+ } >> >>Need to add a netif_running() check to the 'if' test at the top of the >>quote. >> >>Are you (or somebody else?) interested in reviewing all the in-tree >>NAPI drivers, and seeing if other drivers have this bug? I think >>8139cp.c does at least, maybe e100 too... Such a fix would need to go >>into 2.4.x as well. > > > Umm.. the above code is part of ->poll(). I think xxx_interrut() need > netif_running() instead. The driver must clear __LINK_STATE_RX_SCHED > flag... Most interrupt routines already test this, look at static inline int netif_rx_schedule_prep(struct net_device *dev) { return netif_running(dev) && !test_and_set_bit(__LINK_STATE_RX_SCHED, &dev->state); } It shouldn't schedule unless the interface is running. However... I believe it was you that added this check to 8139cp.c: /* close possible race's with dev_close */ if (unlikely(!netif_running(dev))) { cpw16(IntrMask, 0); goto out; } I like this, because regardless of NAPI, most drivers have non-NAPI-related interrupts they must still process. This check handles that. Although this code is a bit redundant to some of the locking and synchronization found in net driver dev->close() methods, I think it is a nice thing to do. I do wonder about the consequences, on some hardware, about receiving an interrupt and -not- processing the RX or TX completions associated with that. For most NIC hardware, you'll get sane behavior, but not all, I bet... > BTW, ->napi_lock is unneeded because netif_schedule() is already > atomic, it need only local_irq_enable/disable(). > > After __netif_rx_complete() must not do "goto rx_action", otherwise it Agreed. Jeff