Re: [PATCH wpan-next v2 05/11] net: mac802154: Bring the hability to hold the transmit queue

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>,
	Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org>,
	linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Girault <david.girault@qorvo.com>,
	Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@qorvo.com>,
	Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@qorvo.com>,
	Nicolas Schodet <nico@ni.fr.eu.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next v2 05/11] net: mac802154: Bring the hability to hold the transmit queue
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 15:28:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220517152840.5a01037b@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK-6q+ihfOSBjpw1Q-2qesd4nkrAfw_rBCd0QcWzXk0PP9Prtg@mail.gmail.com>

aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Tue, 17 May 2022 09:19:29 -0400:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:28 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >  
> > > > @@ -84,7 +118,7 @@ void ieee802154_xmit_complete(struct ieee802154_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > >                                       hw->phy->sifs_period * NSEC_PER_USEC,
> > > >                                       HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> > > >         } else {
> > > > -               ieee802154_wake_queue(hw);
> > > > +               ieee802154_release_queue(local);
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > >         dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
> > > > @@ -98,7 +132,7 @@ void ieee802154_xmit_error(struct ieee802154_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > >         struct ieee802154_local *local = hw_to_local(hw);
> > > >
> > > >         local->tx_result = reason;
> > > > -       ieee802154_wake_queue(hw);
> > > > +       ieee802154_release_queue(local);
> > > >         dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> > > >         atomic_dec(&hw->phy->ongoing_txs);  
> > >
> > > I am pretty sure that will end in a scheduling while atomic warning
> > > with hwsim. If you don't hit it you have the wrong config, you need to
> > > enable such warnings and have the right preemption model setting.  
> >
> > I was using the "desktop" kernel preemption model (voluntary), I've
> > switched to CONFIG_PREEMPT ("Preemptible kernel (Low-latency)"),
> > and enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. You are right that we should use
> > a spinlock instead of a mutex here. However I don't think disabling
> > IRQs is necessary, so I'll switch to spin_(un)lock() calls.
> >  
> 
> In my opinion it's necessary for the ifs hrtimer. Normal
> spin_lock/unlock is not the right fit here.

You're right, I forgot about hrtimers.

Thanks,
Miquèl