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

[Mirsad Todorovac]

On 1/17/24 14:44, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:30:53AM +0100, 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?
>
> Hi Mirsad
>
> Please take a read of:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>
> Do you think this patch fulfils these criteria? In particularly, "It
> must either fix a real bug that bothers people...".
>
> I agree with Heiner, this appears to be just an optimisation,

Hi Andrew,

Yes, I wasn't aware of the 100 lines limit, and yes, this is not a bug fix,
but an improvement (optimisation).

I think by this I can join to consensus, this patch is not a candidate for
backporting. :-/

However, I am concerned about the possibility of two kernel threads accessing
the RTL NIC intermittently attempting to program the NIC over the RTL_(R|W)(8|16|32)
instructions (which are expanded to readl/writel and assembly).

AFAICS, nothing prevents two (or more) threads to decide in unlikely but
possible case to program the card at the same time. (Do we have a guard lock
against this?)

mac_ocp_lock appears to be acquired and released for each RTL_(R|W)(8|16|32),
with the exception of r8168_mac_ocp_modify().

To be true to the facts, each byte will go to the right port due to address/data
pairs used in each call - however, I am worried whether there could be a scenario
like this:


       CPU 1                                          CPU 2

   start programming NIC
   programming NIC
   (preempted in spin_lock_irqsave()
                                                  start programming NIC
					          programming NIC
					          programming NIC
					          programming NIC
					          preempted in spin_lock_irqsave()
   (resume control in spin_unlock_irqrestore()
   programming NIC
   programming NIC
   (preempted in spin_lock_irqsave()
					          continue programming NIC
					          programming NIC
					          programming NIC
						  end programming NIC
   (resume control in spin_unlock_irqrestore()
   programming NIC
   end programming NIC

Now, every byte, word or longword will come to the right place, thanks to
RTL_(R|W)(8|16|32) having the address/data pairs - but I worry that this
jumping from sequence to sequence might confuse the NIC.

I mean, if those latches behind the addresses cause some physical effect, maybe
the ORDER is also important, not just that every byte, word or longword comes
to the right address?

r8168_mac_ocp_read()/r8168_mac_ocp_write() guarantee that every piece of
data will end being read or written at the right address, OK. But this
does not seem to guarantee the SEQUENTIAL ORDER of the programming.

I mean, if we are dealing with physical hardware like a NIC, the order
of (especially writing) data might be crucial. 8-/

Am I making any sense?

Are we algorithmically secured that two threads will never attempt to
write data to NIC hardware registers?

Thanks.

Best regards,
Mirsad Todorovac


>       Andrew

--
CARNet system engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb

CARNet sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu