Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read/writes to assure ordering

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: opendmb@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	kuba@kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read/writes to assure ordering
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:04:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0465ecd0-0cd7-1376-51bf-38aa385c128a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220310045358.224350-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>

On 3/9/22 8:53 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> GCC12 appears to be much smarter about its dependency tracking and is
> aware that the relaxed variants are just normal loads and stores and
> this is causing problems like:
> 
> [  210.074549] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [  210.079223] NETDEV WATCHDOG: enabcm6e4ei0 (bcmgenet): transmit queue 1 timed out
> [  210.086717] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net/sched/sch_generic.c:529 dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> [  210.095044] Modules linked in: genet(E) nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat]
> [  210.146561] ACPI CPPC: PCC check channel failed for ss: 0. ret=-110
> [  210.146927] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G            E     5.17.0-rc7G12+ #58
> [  210.153226] CPPC Cpufreq:cppc_scale_freq_workfn: failed to read perf counters
> [  210.161349] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi Foundation Raspberry Pi 4 Model B/Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, BIOS EDK2-DEV 02/08/2022
> [  210.161353] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> [  210.161358] pc : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> [  210.161364] lr : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> [  210.161368] sp : ffff8000080a3a40
> [  210.161370] x29: ffff8000080a3a40 x28: ffffcd425af87000 x27: ffff8000080a3b20
> [  210.205150] x26: ffffcd425aa00000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffcd425af8ec08
> [  210.212321] x23: 0000000000000100 x22: ffffcd425af87000 x21: ffff55b142688000
> [  210.219491] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff55b1426884c8 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> [  210.226661] x17: 64656d6974203120 x16: 0000000000000001 x15: 6d736e617274203a
> [  210.233831] x14: 2974656e65676d63 x13: ffffcd4259c300d8 x12: ffffcd425b07d5f0
> [  210.241001] x11: 00000000ffffffff x10: ffffcd425b07d5f0 x9 : ffffcd4258bdad9c
> [  210.248171] x8 : 00000000ffffdfff x7 : 000000000000003f x6 : 0000000000000000
> [  210.255341] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000001000
> [  210.262511] x2 : 0000000000001000 x1 : 0000000000000005 x0 : 0000000000000044
> [  210.269682] Call trace:
> [  210.272133]  dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240
> [  210.275811]  call_timer_fn+0x3c/0x15c
> [  210.279489]  __run_timers.part.0+0x288/0x310
> [  210.283777]  run_timer_softirq+0x48/0x80
> [  210.287716]  __do_softirq+0x128/0x360
> [  210.291392]  __irq_exit_rcu+0x138/0x140
> [  210.295243]  irq_exit_rcu+0x1c/0x30
> [  210.298745]  el1_interrupt+0x38/0x54
> [  210.302334]  el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24
> [  210.306445]  el1h_64_irq+0x7c/0x80
> [  210.309857]  arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x2c
> [  210.313445]  default_idle_call+0x4c/0x140
> [  210.317470]  cpuidle_idle_call+0x14c/0x1a0
> [  210.321584]  do_idle+0xb0/0x100
> [  210.324737]  cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x8c
> [  210.328675]  secondary_start_kernel+0xe4/0x110
> [  210.333138]  __secondary_switched+0x94/0x98
> 
> The assumption when these were relaxed seems to be that device memory
> would be mapped non reordering, and that other constructs
> (spinlocks/etc) would provide the barriers to assure that packet data
> and in memory rings/queues were ordered with respect to device
> register reads/writes. This itself seems a bit sketchy, but the real
> problem with GCC12 is that it is moving the actual reads/writes around
> at will as though they were independent operations when in truth they
> are not, but the compiler can't know that. When looking at the
> assembly dumps for many of these routines its possible to see very
> clean, but not strictly in program order operations occurring as the
> compiler would be free to do if these weren't actually register
> reads/write operations.
> 
> Its possible to suppress the timeout with a liberal bit of dma_mb()'s
> sprinkled around but the device still seems unable to reliably
> send/receive data. A better plan is to use the safer readl/writel
> everywhere.
> 
> Since this partially reverts an older commit, which notes the use of
> the relaxed variants for performance reasons. I would suggest that
> any performance problems with this commit are targeted at relaxing only
> the performance critical code paths after assuring proper barriers.
> 
> Fixes: 69d2ea9c79898 ("net: bcmgenet: Use correct I/O accessors")
> Reported-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>

Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian