diff mbox series

[net,v2] net: macb: Fix lost RX packet wakeup race in NAPI receive

Message ID 20220303181027.168204-1-robert.hancock@calian.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Commit 0bf476fc3624e3a72af4ba7340d430a91c18cd67
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series [net,v2] net: macb: Fix lost RX packet wakeup race in NAPI receive | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag present in non-next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 25 this patch: 25
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 6 of 6 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 25 this patch: 25
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 82 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Robert Hancock March 3, 2022, 6:10 p.m. UTC
There is an oddity in the way the RSR register flags propagate to the
ISR register (and the actual interrupt output) on this hardware: it
appears that RSR register bits only result in ISR being asserted if the
interrupt was actually enabled at the time, so enabling interrupts with
RSR bits already set doesn't trigger an interrupt to be raised. There
was already a partial fix for this race in the macb_poll function where
it checked for RSR bits being set and re-triggered NAPI receive.
However, there was a still a race window between checking RSR and
actually enabling interrupts, where a lost wakeup could happen. It's
necessary to check again after enabling interrupts to see if RSR was set
just prior to the interrupt being enabled, and re-trigger receive in that
case.

This issue was noticed in a point-to-point UDP request-response protocol
which periodically saw timeouts or abnormally high response times due to
received packets not being processed in a timely fashion. In many
applications, more packets arriving, including TCP retransmissions, would
cause the original packet to be processed, thus masking the issue.

Fixes: 02f7a34f34e3 ("net: macb: Re-enable RX interrupt only when RX is done")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Co-developed-by: Scott McNutt <scott.mcnutt@siriusxm.com>
Signed-off-by: Scott McNutt <scott.mcnutt@siriusxm.com>
Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@calian.com>
---

Changes since v1:
-removed unrelated cleanup
-added notes on observed frequency of branches to comments

 drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Claudiu Beznea March 4, 2022, 9:19 a.m. UTC | #1
On 03.03.2022 20:10, Robert Hancock wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> There is an oddity in the way the RSR register flags propagate to the
> ISR register (and the actual interrupt output) on this hardware: it
> appears that RSR register bits only result in ISR being asserted if the
> interrupt was actually enabled at the time, so enabling interrupts with
> RSR bits already set doesn't trigger an interrupt to be raised. There
> was already a partial fix for this race in the macb_poll function where
> it checked for RSR bits being set and re-triggered NAPI receive.
> However, there was a still a race window between checking RSR and
> actually enabling interrupts, where a lost wakeup could happen. It's
> necessary to check again after enabling interrupts to see if RSR was set
> just prior to the interrupt being enabled, and re-trigger receive in that
> case.
> 
> This issue was noticed in a point-to-point UDP request-response protocol
> which periodically saw timeouts or abnormally high response times due to
> received packets not being processed in a timely fashion. In many
> applications, more packets arriving, including TCP retransmissions, would
> cause the original packet to be processed, thus masking the issue.
> 
> Fixes: 02f7a34f34e3 ("net: macb: Re-enable RX interrupt only when RX is done")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Co-developed-by: Scott McNutt <scott.mcnutt@siriusxm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Scott McNutt <scott.mcnutt@siriusxm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@calian.com>

Tested on SAMA7G5:
Tested-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>

> ---
> 
> Changes since v1:
> -removed unrelated cleanup
> -added notes on observed frequency of branches to comments
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
> index 98498a76ae16..d13f06cf0308 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
> @@ -1573,7 +1573,14 @@ static int macb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
>         if (work_done < budget) {
>                 napi_complete_done(napi, work_done);
> 
> -               /* Packets received while interrupts were disabled */
> +               /* RSR bits only seem to propagate to raise interrupts when
> +                * interrupts are enabled at the time, so if bits are already
> +                * set due to packets received while interrupts were disabled,
> +                * they will not cause another interrupt to be generated when
> +                * interrupts are re-enabled.
> +                * Check for this case here. This has been seen to happen
> +                * around 30% of the time under heavy network load.
> +                */
>                 status = macb_readl(bp, RSR);
>                 if (status) {
>                         if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE)
> @@ -1581,6 +1588,22 @@ static int macb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
>                         napi_reschedule(napi);
>                 } else {
>                         queue_writel(queue, IER, bp->rx_intr_mask);
> +
> +                       /* In rare cases, packets could have been received in
> +                        * the window between the check above and re-enabling
> +                        * interrupts. Therefore, a double-check is required
> +                        * to avoid losing a wakeup. This can potentially race
> +                        * with the interrupt handler doing the same actions
> +                        * if an interrupt is raised just after enabling them,
> +                        * but this should be harmless.
> +                        */
> +                       status = macb_readl(bp, RSR);
> +                       if (unlikely(status)) {
> +                               queue_writel(queue, IDR, bp->rx_intr_mask);
> +                               if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE)
> +                                       queue_writel(queue, ISR, MACB_BIT(RCOMP));
> +                               napi_schedule(napi);
> +                       }
>                 }
>         }
> 
> --
> 2.31.1
>
patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org March 4, 2022, 12:10 p.m. UTC | #2
Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (master)
by David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:

On Thu,  3 Mar 2022 12:10:27 -0600 you wrote:
> There is an oddity in the way the RSR register flags propagate to the
> ISR register (and the actual interrupt output) on this hardware: it
> appears that RSR register bits only result in ISR being asserted if the
> interrupt was actually enabled at the time, so enabling interrupts with
> RSR bits already set doesn't trigger an interrupt to be raised. There
> was already a partial fix for this race in the macb_poll function where
> it checked for RSR bits being set and re-triggered NAPI receive.
> However, there was a still a race window between checking RSR and
> actually enabling interrupts, where a lost wakeup could happen. It's
> necessary to check again after enabling interrupts to see if RSR was set
> just prior to the interrupt being enabled, and re-trigger receive in that
> case.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net,v2] net: macb: Fix lost RX packet wakeup race in NAPI receive
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/0bf476fc3624

You are awesome, thank you!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
index 98498a76ae16..d13f06cf0308 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb_main.c
@@ -1573,7 +1573,14 @@  static int macb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
 	if (work_done < budget) {
 		napi_complete_done(napi, work_done);
 
-		/* Packets received while interrupts were disabled */
+		/* RSR bits only seem to propagate to raise interrupts when
+		 * interrupts are enabled at the time, so if bits are already
+		 * set due to packets received while interrupts were disabled,
+		 * they will not cause another interrupt to be generated when
+		 * interrupts are re-enabled.
+		 * Check for this case here. This has been seen to happen
+		 * around 30% of the time under heavy network load.
+		 */
 		status = macb_readl(bp, RSR);
 		if (status) {
 			if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE)
@@ -1581,6 +1588,22 @@  static int macb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
 			napi_reschedule(napi);
 		} else {
 			queue_writel(queue, IER, bp->rx_intr_mask);
+
+			/* In rare cases, packets could have been received in
+			 * the window between the check above and re-enabling
+			 * interrupts. Therefore, a double-check is required
+			 * to avoid losing a wakeup. This can potentially race
+			 * with the interrupt handler doing the same actions
+			 * if an interrupt is raised just after enabling them,
+			 * but this should be harmless.
+			 */
+			status = macb_readl(bp, RSR);
+			if (unlikely(status)) {
+				queue_writel(queue, IDR, bp->rx_intr_mask);
+				if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE)
+					queue_writel(queue, ISR, MACB_BIT(RCOMP));
+				napi_schedule(napi);
+			}
 		}
 	}