Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.7 021/108] r8169: improve RTL8411b phy-down fixup

[Heiner Kallweit]

On 17.01.2024 11:30, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> On 1/17/24 02:43, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:38:47 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> Mirsad proposed a patch to reduce the number of spinlock lock/unlock
>>> operations and the function code size. This can be further improved
>>> because the function sets a consecutive register block.
>>
>> Clearly a noop and a lot of LoC changed. I vote to drop this from
>> the backport.
> 
> Dear Jakub,
> 
> I will not argue with a senior developer, but please let me plead for the
> cause.
> 
> There are a couple of issues here:
> 
> 1. Heiner's patch generates smaller and faster code, with 100+
> spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_restore() pairs less.
> 
> According to this table:
> 
> [1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/perfbook/perfbook-1c.2023.06.11a.pdf#table.3.1
> 
> The cost of single lock can be 15.4 - 101.9 ns (for the example CPU),
> so total savings would be 1709 - 11310 ns. But as the event of PHY power
> down is not frequent, this might be a insignificant saving indeed.
> 
> 2. Why I had advertised atomic programming of RTL registers in the first
> place?
> 
> The mac_ocp_lock was introduced recently:
> 
> commit 91c8643578a21e435c412ffbe902bb4b4773e262
> Author: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Mon Mar 6 22:23:15 2023 +0100
> 
>     r8169: use spinlock to protect mac ocp register access
> 
>     For disabling ASPM during NAPI poll we'll have to access mac ocp
>     registers in atomic context. This could result in races because
>     a mac ocp read consists of a write to register OCPDR, followed
>     by a read from the same register. Therefore add a spinlock to
>     protect access to mac ocp registers.
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Well, the answer is in the question - the very need for protecting the access
> to RTL_W(8|16|32) with locks comes from the fact that something was accessing
> the RTL card asynchronously.
> 
> Forgive me if this is a stupid question ...
> 
> Now - do we have a guarantee that the card will not be used asynchronously
> half-programmed from something else in that case, leading to another spurious
> lockup?
> 
> IMHO, shouldn't the entire reprogramming of PHY down recovery of the RTL 8411b
> be done atomically, under a single spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> pair?
> 

There's no actual issue that requires fixing. It's an improvement.

> Best regards,
> Mirsad Todorovac
>