From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754562AbcKQRHZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:07:25 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56326 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933586AbcKQRHV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:07:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:42:01 +0000
From: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Regression: Failed boots bisected to 4cd13c21b207 "softirq: Let
 ksoftirqd do its job"
Message-ID: <20161117164200.GA24653@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20161116135527.GA5833@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CANn89iJ_GmhKzq-yzPNFkxNfoqNJQ_uSUVGX=iJO7reQAHedNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161116180156.GA21156@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CANn89iK=yTkVKi9Wnx3ZXWZSOQc6KJT-FcE7H-5+QB85GE4=Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161116210139.GB21156@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CANn89iKu+=7eD3MenkpfiwqkerwKkJJXonzHi=yiKc3o0A3p9w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iKu+=7eD3MenkpfiwqkerwKkJJXonzHi=yiKc3o0A3p9w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Eric,

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 07:29:14AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:49:06AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The smc91x driver does seem to have some trickiness around softirqs.
>>>> I'm not familiar with net drivers, but I'll see if I can figure
>>>> anything out there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh this code looks ugly :(
>>>
>>> Do you have CONFIG_SMP=y or not ?
>>
>>
>> Yeah CONFIG_SMP=y (and CONFIG_PREEMPT=y too, fwiw).
>>
>> I did try forcing it into the no-op locking (as though config SMP
>> wasn't set), it didn't help (and it doesn't look like that would be
>> safe with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y either).
>>
>> The bit in smc_hardware_send_pkt looks like skipping softirq
>> invocation when there's already one running wouldn't give the same
>> behaviour as before:
>>
>>         if (!smc_special_trylock(&lp->lock, flags)) {
>>                 netif_stop_queue(dev);
>>                 tasklet_schedule(&lp->tx_task);
>>                 return;
>>         }
>>
>> ... that said, I've no idea if that matters.
>>
>> Of course I also don't know if the network driver is even to blame :-(
>>
>
>I believe the problem is in SMC_WAIT_MMU_BUSY()
>
>Could you try this patch ? (inlined and attached)
>

No joy with this patch :-(

I had to add an ioaddr argument because apparently that macro depends
on local context (yuck...), but it doesn't help my issue.

FWIW I don't see any timeouts, either with or without the patch.
(I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the model of the
network card doesn't model whatever stall that loop is checking for.
It probably just completes all MMU operations immediately)

-Brian