From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E074D8C06 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721329968; cv=none; b=F5g6R/FvD+kzblt2HGqDnEtaeKgi/tBYptoF1781uzZKoiWlFzR5in4NjxUe62AbusHFhByjDg/Irp23j4S3Gd++t+WywMy9baD7BsIB0kXx6Fb7CU4HRn3EtK0fMQ0jwG717dauGgz099VlJrMQrzYBBFpBx7p+Epwb0po5kZY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721329968; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BupNy/PDFraDwEeROVjCxk0ipGImbcyOVNmjL88SN94=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F29jrzZssWLMDj9PHY/4dPP6R3X/Pltb6M1SBUFOeHRrM6nw47ZSMiTFXD3spNsfcTjDVRV1zElmrJJkLzKmn7cS8gDK6uq4vOhINzvqb2sAUgsvSIyg19jzQe7SrJZpH+/726PSSCWeXa16t0Wt7WpztDFn3CegAgzcChpNeS8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eefe705510so13780471fa.1 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:12:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721329965; x=1721934765; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=0vT4HPcA/4dNNBAsVvPHu3KPmNWVE10YHz7F8Le8fhs=; b=enKyEM9zZtpA6Q8h0HwprEpin4iA+rG5a8Hvgmyp+5+cUD6nASJySLl1xoqIesnGhc JVTuEo1p0LhrUWbOJpNRrT2owGaCorccQ1VgoohP3zf4O4gqCiSlETnjbSnvUuP5c3Cl fJrA1WIHaoo24O67j4UTpFCsf3R6+pWDJcMlfLJVMAWqSvwd0NBkaAbiZ1023jX98UWZ LSCzjHIRUa+/M7a0tEIQSxoBtWmS6qdNm3dnAqEdp7tCws6d1Q3JcNLndG/PFbZGUez2 y+E5f54NKuNdEBeXH7kSO6lor+TLsmhvZaXJL5w2oisaV9UIEvF4T6bqJcJxlIbp5ImM 8RgA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUaVB8MQBAsgVXcmF9fLJBJgRfxwUnbIn4qJ3RbFAe311/INZ63CTh99ce4ZaNPRXYd1JXNa9NyABKXFu09L4a8K6V+VL2i X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwaGWpp5QjfAYjwCxKNnEjEjXHSzRwvqorVkqX1OMBgNdG5cAP3 BPlAy8rG2CkVkGnaW35aCmP45ZoW6HmP239V5bsmA2vtpDTgbeSHrvOysg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHwL5lpFOWIAP+9TH1uYgKnDNHAggMMHAjFhc1vL9wDv1o76q8zNJJpIBEosg82vyUv0aqFxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a545:0:b0:2ee:d8db:5bcc with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ef05c9afabmr28510631fa.29.1721329964736; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (fwdproxy-lla-001.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:30ff:1::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5a2b6d358besm207180a12.34.2024.07.18.12.12.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:12:42 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Dragos Tatulea Cc: Tariq Toukan , Saeed Mahameed , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: mlx5e warnings on 6.10 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:00:00AM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote: > Hi Breno, > > On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 04:41 -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > > Sharing in case you find it useful. > Thanks for the report. The output, it is very useful. The problem seems to be > that mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_recover() should take a state lock and doesn't. Right. I've looked at other cases where mlx5e_safe_reopen_channels() is called, and priv->state_lock is, in fact, hold before calling it. So, independent if this fix the problem or not, it seems the right thing to do. Feel free to add a "Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao " when you send it. > I wonder why this happened only in 6.10. There were no relevant changes in 6.10. > Or is it maybe that until now you didn't run into the tx queue timeout issue? I don't have a reproducer for it, so, i just got it in 6.10. Maybe just a coincidence? > Would you have the possibility and willingness to test the below fix? Sure. I have two hosts running with your patch, but, it is hard to make them timeout. Let me know if you have any trick I can explore and force the card to time out. Thanks for the quick reply! --breno