From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org
Cc: maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, richardcochran@gmail.com,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com,
james.hilliard1@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rayagond@vayavyalabs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 3/3] net: stmmac: re-apply taprio offload in __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume()
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:55:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auMYBOj_y_Z-AXjO@lore-desk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <179326067100.3134.15863707026342807337@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14953 bytes --]
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential
> issue(s) to consider.
>
> Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 4 · Low: 0 (1)
>
> If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each
> issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
> If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork
> know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply
> (one such reply per series is enough).
>
> - [Medium] The patch says it re-applies "the taprio offload" after the
> core soft reset, but it only replays the EST block.
> - [Medium] The patch handles a failed EST re-apply inconsistently between
> open and resume.
> - [Medium] A taprio REPLACE that is rejected only by the software checks
> in dwmac5_fpe_map_preemption_class() still tears down the installed…
> - [Medium] stmmac_adjust_time() checks and clears priv->est->enable in
> one est_lock section (stmmac_ptp.c:72-79), drops the lock while it…
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [Low] The TX hot paths (stmmac_xmit around stmmac_main.c:4861,
> stmmac_tso_xmit, the XSK zero-copy path around 2753, and…
>
> --
>
> net: stmmac: re-apply taprio offload in __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume()
>
> The core soft reset in stmmac_hw_setup() clears the MTL_EST registers. This
> patch re-programs EST from __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume(), recomputing
> the base time from the reserved base time and the current PTP time, and
> reuses the same helper in stmmac_adjust_time(). It also reworks
> tc_taprio_configure() to hold est_lock across validation and programming,
> and to set priv->est->enable only after hardware programming succeeds.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_est.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_est.h
> > index f70221c9c84af..0f0f162794c84 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_est.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_est.h
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -65,3 +68,18 @@
> > #define EST_GCL_DATA 0x00000034
> >
> > extern const struct stmmac_est_ops dwmac510_est_ops;
> > +
> > +int __stmmac_setup_est(struct stmmac_priv *priv);
> > +static inline int stmmac_setup_est(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> > + if (priv->est && priv->est->enable)
> > + ret = __stmmac_setup_est(priv);
>
> [Severity: Medium]
>
> The commit message says this re-applies "the taprio offload" after the core
> soft reset. Does stmmac_setup_est() restore everything that taprio
> programmed, or only the EST block?
>
> On a successful TAPRIO_CMD_REPLACE, tc_taprio_configure() also calls:
>
> ret = stmmac_fpe_map_preemption_class(priv, priv->dev, extack,
> qopt->mqprio.preemptible_tcs);
>
> On GMAC5, dwmac5_fpe_map_preemption_class() writes FPE_MTL_PREEMPTION_CLASS
> in GMAC5_MTL_FPE_CTRL_STS. On XGMAC, dwxgmac3_fpe_map_preemption_class()
> also writes the per-queue XGMAC_Q2TCMAP field and XGMAC_MTL_FPE_CTRL_STS,
> even when pclass is 0. During stmmac_hw_setup(), dwxgmac2_dma_tx_mode() then
> rewrites Q2TCMAP back to the channel index:
>
> value |= FIELD_PREP(XGMAC_Q2TCMAP, channel);
>
> preemptible_tcs is not saved in priv, and stmmac_fpe_map_preemption_class()
> is only called from stmmac_tc.c. That means neither __stmmac_open() nor
> stmmac_resume() can replay it.
>
> So what happens after ifdown/ifup, an MTU or ring size change, or
> suspend/resume? On GMAC5, would the preemptible TCs silently turn into
> express TCs? On XGMAC, would the queues go back to the default queue == TC
> mapping, so the EST gate masks no longer cover the intended queues?
>
> Meanwhile __stmmac_setup_est() sets priv->est->enable = true, so taprio
> would keep reporting the full offload as installed.
I will fix it in v5.
>
> > + mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > index 9e09e11cc35e5..a13a3790207d5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -4201,6 +4202,10 @@ static int __stmmac_open(struct net_device *dev,
> > if (ret)
> > goto ptp_error;
> >
> > + ret = stmmac_setup_est(priv);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto est_error;
> > +
> > stmmac_init_coalesce(priv);
> >
> > phylink_start(priv->phylink);
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -8518,6 +8523,10 @@ int stmmac_resume(struct device *dev)
> > ret = stmmac_init_timestamping(priv);
> > if (ret)
> > goto error_stop_dma;
> > +
> > + ret = stmmac_setup_est(priv);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto error_stop_dma;
> > }
> >
> > init_coalesce:
>
> [Severity: Medium]
>
> The callers seem to handle a failed EST re-apply in different ways. There
> are a few cases.
>
> In __stmmac_open(), stmmac_setup_ptp() can return 0 without enabling PTP:
>
> stmmac_setup_ptp() {
> ...
> if (stmmac_init_ptp_clk_freq(priv)) {
> clk_disable_unprepare(priv->plat->clk_ptp_ref);
> return 0;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> This can happen when clk_ptp_rate is 0. For example, qcom-ethqos re-reads
> clk_get_rate() in ethqos_ptp_clk_freq_config() on every open, so the rate
> can become 0 after an earlier successful taprio REPLACE.
>
> stmmac_setup_est() still runs in that case. __stmmac_setup_est() reads the
> time through gettimex64 with the timestamp counter never initialised, and
> est_configure() returns -EINVAL for a zero ptp_rate. Wouldn't ndo_open then
> fail, where it succeeded before this patch?
>
> In stmmac_resume(), any EST programming error (for example -ETIMEDOUT from
> est_write()) now goes to error_stop_dma. That path stops DMA, disables the
> MAC, powers down the serdes and returns without calling
> netif_device_attach(), while netif_running() is still true. Is it intended
> that losing EST now leaves the interface dead after resume?
>
> Also in stmmac_resume(), when stmmac_init_ptp_clk_freq() fails, the code
> jumps to init_coalesce and skips stmmac_setup_est(). Resume then returns
> success with priv->est->enable still true, even though the soft reset has
> cleared MTL_EST. Isn't that the stale state the commit message says it
> removes?
>
> When __stmmac_setup_est() fails, it returns without clearing
> priv->est->enable:
>
> if (err) {
> netdev_err(priv->dev, "failed to re-configure EST\n");
> return err;
> }
>
> For the open and resume callers the flag was already true on entry. It
> stays true while EEST is off or only partly programmed. The commit message
> says the helper "only marks the offload enabled once the hardware
> programming succeeds". Does that hold for these callers?
>
> Finally, stmmac_adjust_time() ignores the return value of the same helper.
> Should the three callers share one failure policy?
I will fix it in v5.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ptp.c
> > index 9a32af00d7d2d..81ee896698653 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ptp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ptp.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -69,14 +69,14 @@ static int stmmac_adjust_time(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, s64 delta)
> > nsec = reminder;
> >
> > /* If EST is enabled, disabled it before adjust ptp time. */
> > + mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> > if (priv->est && priv->est->enable) {
> > est_rst = true;
> > - mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> > priv->est->enable = false;
> > stmmac_est_configure(priv, priv, priv->est,
> > priv->plat->clk_ptp_rate, false);
> > - mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> > }
> > + mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> >
> > write_lock_irqsave(&priv->ptp_lock, flags);
> > stmmac_adjust_systime(priv, priv->ptpaddr, sec, nsec, neg_adj, xmac);
> > @@ -84,31 +84,9 @@ static int stmmac_adjust_time(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, s64 delta)
> >
> > /* Calculate new basetime and re-configured EST after PTP time adjust. */
> > if (est_rst) {
> > - struct timespec64 current_time, time;
> > - ktime_t current_time_ns, basetime;
> > - u64 cycle_time;
> > -
> > mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > - ret = stmmac_est_configure(priv, priv, priv->est,
> > - priv->plat->clk_ptp_rate, true);
> > + __stmmac_setup_est(priv);
> > mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> > - if (ret)
> > - netdev_err(priv->dev, "failed to configure EST\n");
> > }
>
> [Severity: Medium]
>
> est_lock is dropped between clearing priv->est->enable and calling
> __stmmac_setup_est() here. est_rst is not re-checked once the lock is taken
> again. Can a taprio operation that runs inside that window get overridden?
>
> ptp_clock_adjtime() does not take RTNL, so this ordering looks possible:
>
> CPU1 (stmmac_adjust_time)
> mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> est_rst = true;
> priv->est->enable = false;
> mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> stmmac_adjust_systime();
>
> CPU2 (tc_taprio_configure, TAPRIO_CMD_DESTROY)
> mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> priv->est->enable = false;
> stmmac_est_configure(..., false);
> stmmac_fpe_map_preemption_class(..., 0);
> mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
>
> CPU1
> mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> __stmmac_setup_est(priv);
> stmmac_est_configure(..., true);
> priv->est->enable = true;
>
> A REPLACE that fails and goes to disable: would race the same way.
>
> The disable: path leaves gcl, ctr, btr_reserve and max_sdu[] in priv->est.
> Would the old schedule, or the rejected one, then be programmed back into
> hardware with enable set to true after the qdisc offload is gone? If so, the
> TX/XDP paths would keep dropping frames larger than the stale max_sdu[].
>
> __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume() now trust that flag, so the schedule
> would also be re-armed on every ifup and resume. taprio would not send
> another DESTROY because q->offloaded is already false.
>
> Should the decision to re-enable be re-validated under est_lock before
> __stmmac_setup_est() is called?
I will fix it in v5.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_tc.c
> > index ac926c60f9f9a..95c5f6100c66a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_tc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_tc.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1060,13 +1065,26 @@ static int tc_taprio_configure(struct stmmac_priv *priv,
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > - priv->est->gcl[i] = delta_ns | (gates << wid);
> > + gcl[i] = delta_ns | (gates << wid);
> > }
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> > + if (!priv->est) {
> > + priv->est = devm_kzalloc(priv->device, sizeof(*priv->est),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!priv->est) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto error_unlock;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + memset(priv->est, 0, sizeof(*priv->est));
> > + }
>
> [Severity: Low]
>
> This is a pre-existing issue and was not introduced by this patch. The TX
> hot paths read priv->est, priv->est->enable and priv->est->max_sdu[] with
> plain loads and without est_lock. For example, in stmmac_xmit():
>
> if (priv->est && priv->est->enable &&
> priv->est->max_sdu[queue]) {
>
> stmmac_tso_xmit(), stmmac_xdp_xmit_zc() and stmmac_xdp_xmit_xdpf() do the
> same.
>
> The writers hold only est_lock. They use plain stores, a memset() of the
> live struct, and a devm_kzalloc() pointer publish with no release ordering.
>
> Could a REPLACE that runs concurrently with transmit briefly let oversize
> frames through, or drop them? Two ways this could happen: the memset
> temporarily zeroes max_sdu[], or a weakly ordered CPU sees the new pointer
> before its zeroing is visible.
>
> This patch does improve the ordering somewhat, since enable is now set only
> after max_sdu[] is populated. The effect is limited to transient per-packet
> filtering decisions.
>
> > + memcpy(priv->est->gcl, gcl, sizeof(*gcl) * qopt->num_entries);
> > + priv->est->gcl_size = qopt->num_entries;
> > +
> > /* Adjust for real system time */
> > priv->ptp_clock_ops.gettimex64(&priv->ptp_clock_ops, ¤t_time,
> > NULL);
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1102,11 +1119,15 @@ static int tc_taprio_configure(struct stmmac_priv *priv,
> > if (ret)
> > goto disable;
>
> [Severity: Medium]
>
> The commit message says "A rejected REPLACE then leaves the currently
> installed schedule intact in both software and hardware". However,
> stmmac_fpe_map_preemption_class() can still reject the request after
> priv->est has been memset, overwritten with the new schedule and programmed
> into hardware.
>
> dwmac5_fpe_map_preemption_class() returns -EINVAL with an extack message
> based only on configuration checks, before it writes any register:
>
> if (priv->xmit_qdisc.algo == MTL_TX_ALGORITHM_SP) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, ALG_ERR_MSG);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> It does the same for unequal queue weights within a TC. That error goes to
> disable:, which clears priv->est->enable, disables EST in hardware and
> resets the preemption class to 0.
>
> On the taprio side, taprio_enable_offload() returns the error before it
> touches q->offloaded, which stays true from the previous schedule.
> taprio_change() then goes to free_sched without installing the new admin
> schedule. Doesn't this leave the qdisc reporting the old schedule as
> offloaded while hardware EST is off?
>
> enable is now false, so stmmac_setup_est() will not restore the schedule on
> a later open or resume either.
>
> One way to hit this:
>
> 1. Install an express-only schedule with a TC mapped to two queues. This is
> accepted, because pclass == 0 skips the checks.
> 2. Run tc qdisc change to mark that TC preemptible.
>
> Should the FPE mapping checks run before the installed configuration is
> replaced?
This behaviour has not been introduced in this patch and it needs to be fixed
with a dedicated patch.
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> > +
> > + priv->est->enable = true;
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&priv->est_lock);
> > + kfree(gcl);
> > +
> > return 0;
> >
> > disable:
> > if (priv->est) {
> > - mutex_lock(&priv->est_lock);
> > priv->est->enable = false;
> > stmmac_est_configure(priv, priv, priv->est,
> > priv->plat->clk_ptp_rate, false);
>
> [ ... ]
>
> --
> Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20261026-stmmac-est-fixes-v4-0-999dac4de44f%40oss.qualcomm.com
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-26 16:55 [PATCH net v4 0/3] net: stmmac: re-apply taprio offload in __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume() Lorenzo Bianconi
2026-10-26 16:55 ` [PATCH net v4 1/3] net: stmmac: initialize est_lock at probe time Lorenzo Bianconi
2026-10-29 8:08 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-10-26 16:55 ` [PATCH net v4 2/3] net: stmmac: pass the desired EST enable state to est_configure() Lorenzo Bianconi
2026-10-29 8:09 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-10-26 16:55 ` [PATCH net v4 3/3] net: stmmac: re-apply taprio offload in __stmmac_open() and stmmac_resume() Lorenzo Bianconi
2026-10-29 7:57 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-10-29 9:55 ` Lorenzo Bianconi [this message]
2026-10-26 17:00 ` [PATCH net v4 0/3] " netdev-bot+sinfo
2026-10-27 8:50 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=auMYBOj_y_Z-AXjO@lore-desk \
--to=lorenzo.bianconi@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@kernel.org \
--cc=james.hilliard1@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rayagond@vayavyalabs.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox