Re: [PATCH v5] net: ethernet: add driver for Aurora VLSI NB8800 Ethernet controller

[Måns Rullgård]

David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:17:07 +0000
>
>> David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:09:19 +0000
>>>
>>>> David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Måns Rullgård <mans@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:25:05 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the TX DMA channel is idle when start_xmit is called, it can be
>>>>>> started immediately.  Checking the DMA status and starting it if
>>>>>> idle has to be done atomically somehow.
>>>>>
>>>>> ->ndo_start_xmit() is guaranteed to be invoked atomically, protected
>>>>> by the TX queue spinlock.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but the DMA needs to be restarted from some other context if it was
>>>> busy when start_xmit checked.
>>>
>>> Then you can probably use the TXQ lock in the interrupt handler just for
>>> that.
>> 
>> That seems a bit heavy-handed when the critical section for this is only
>> a tiny part of the start_xmit function.
>
> Then what synchornization primitive other than spin locks are you going
> to use for this?
>
> My point is that there is a spinlock the core code is _already_ taking,
> unconditionally, when ->ndo_start_xmit() executes.  And you can therefore
> take advantage of that rather than using another lock of your own.

I get that.  But that remains locked for the duration of ndo_start_xmit()
whereas the part that needs to be synchronised with the DMA completion
IRQ handler is tiny.  Having the IRQ handler spin for the duration of
ndo_start_xmit() seemed silly to me.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/