diff mbox series

[v2,net-next,11/13] net: enetc: optimize the allocation of tx_bdr

Message ID 20241015125841.1075560-12-wei.fang@nxp.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series add basic support for i.MX95 NETC | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next, async
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 5 this patch: 5
netdev/build_tools success No tools touched, skip
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 6 of 6 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 5 this patch: 5
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 81 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Wei Fang Oct. 15, 2024, 12:58 p.m. UTC
From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>

There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by bdr_int_num.
For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num is 3. According to the
previous logic, this results in two tx_bdr corresponding memories not
being allocated, so when sending packets to tx ring 6 or 7, wild pointers
will be accessed. Of course, this issue doesn't exist on LS1028A, because
its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1 or 2. However, there
is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that each tx_bdr can be allocated to the corresponding memory.

Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
---
v2 changes:
This patch is separated from v1 patch 9 ("net: enetc: optimize the
allocation of tx_bdr"). Only the optimized part is kept.
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Claudiu Manoil Oct. 15, 2024, 4:37 p.m. UTC | #1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:59 PM
[...]
> Subject: [PATCH v2 net-next 11/13] net: enetc: optimize the allocation of
> tx_bdr
> 
> From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
> 
> There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by bdr_int_num.
> For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num is 3. According to the
> previous logic, this results in two tx_bdr corresponding memories not
> being allocated, so when sending packets to tx ring 6 or 7, wild pointers
> will be accessed. Of course, this issue doesn't exist on LS1028A, because
> its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1 or 2. However, there
> is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
> that each tx_bdr can be allocated to the corresponding memory.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> ---
> v2 changes:
> This patch is separated from v1 patch 9 ("net: enetc: optimize the
> allocation of tx_bdr"). Only the optimized part is kept.
> ---

Reviewed-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>
Frank Li Oct. 15, 2024, 4:58 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 08:58:39PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
>
> There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by bdr_int_num.
> For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num is 3. According to the
> previous logic, this results in two tx_bdr corresponding memories not
> being allocated, so when sending packets to tx ring 6 or 7, wild pointers
> will be accessed. Of course, this issue doesn't exist on LS1028A, because
> its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1 or 2. However, there
> is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
> that each tx_bdr can be allocated to the corresponding memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> ---
> v2 changes:
> This patch is separated from v1 patch 9 ("net: enetc: optimize the
> allocation of tx_bdr"). Only the optimized part is kept.
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> index d36af3f8ba31..72ddf8b16271 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> @@ -3049,10 +3049,10 @@ static void enetc_int_vector_destroy(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv, int i)
>  int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->si->pdev;
> +	int v_tx_rings, v_remainder;
>  	int num_stack_tx_queues;
>  	int first_xdp_tx_ring;
>  	int i, n, err, nvec;
> -	int v_tx_rings;

Nit: Needn't move v_tx_rings.

Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>

>
>  	nvec = ENETC_BDR_INT_BASE_IDX + priv->bdr_int_num;
>  	/* allocate MSIX for both messaging and Rx/Tx interrupts */
> @@ -3066,10 +3066,14 @@ int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
>
>  	/* # of tx rings per int vector */
>  	v_tx_rings = priv->num_tx_rings / priv->bdr_int_num;
> +	v_remainder = priv->num_tx_rings % priv->bdr_int_num;
>
> -	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++)
> -		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, v_tx_rings))
> +	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++) {
> +		int num_tx_rings = i < v_remainder ? v_tx_rings + 1 : v_tx_rings;
> +
> +		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, num_tx_rings))
>  			goto fail;
> +	}
>
>  	num_stack_tx_queues = enetc_num_stack_tx_queues(priv);
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Wei Fang Oct. 16, 2024, 1:53 a.m. UTC | #3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com>
> Sent: 2024年10月16日 0:58
> To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> Cc: davem@davemloft.net; edumazet@google.com; kuba@kernel.org;
> pabeni@redhat.com; robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org;
> conor+dt@kernel.org; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>; Claudiu
> Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>;
> christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu; linux@armlinux.org.uk; bhelgaas@google.com;
> horms@kernel.org; imx@lists.linux.dev; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 11/13] net: enetc: optimize the allocation of
> tx_bdr
> 
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 08:58:39PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
> >
> > There is a situation where num_tx_rings cannot be divided by bdr_int_num.
> > For example, num_tx_rings is 8 and bdr_int_num is 3. According to the
> > previous logic, this results in two tx_bdr corresponding memories not
> > being allocated, so when sending packets to tx ring 6 or 7, wild
> > pointers will be accessed. Of course, this issue doesn't exist on
> > LS1028A, because its num_tx_rings is 8, and bdr_int_num is either 1 or
> > 2. However, there is a risk for the upcoming i.MX95. Therefore, it is
> > necessary to ensure that each tx_bdr can be allocated to the corresponding
> memory.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > v2 changes:
> > This patch is separated from v1 patch 9 ("net: enetc: optimize the
> > allocation of tx_bdr"). Only the optimized part is kept.
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 10 +++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > index d36af3f8ba31..72ddf8b16271 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > @@ -3049,10 +3049,10 @@ static void enetc_int_vector_destroy(struct
> > enetc_ndev_priv *priv, int i)  int enetc_alloc_msix(struct
> > enetc_ndev_priv *priv)  {
> >  	struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->si->pdev;
> > +	int v_tx_rings, v_remainder;
> >  	int num_stack_tx_queues;
> >  	int first_xdp_tx_ring;
> >  	int i, n, err, nvec;
> > -	int v_tx_rings;
> 
> Nit: Needn't move v_tx_rings.

Just to keep the reverse xmas tree style, of course I could add a new line to
define v_remainder, but these two variables are related, so I think it is more
appropriate to define them together.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> 
> >
> >  	nvec = ENETC_BDR_INT_BASE_IDX + priv->bdr_int_num;
> >  	/* allocate MSIX for both messaging and Rx/Tx interrupts */ @@
> > -3066,10 +3066,14 @@ int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv
> > *priv)
> >
> >  	/* # of tx rings per int vector */
> >  	v_tx_rings = priv->num_tx_rings / priv->bdr_int_num;
> > +	v_remainder = priv->num_tx_rings % priv->bdr_int_num;
> >
> > -	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++)
> > -		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, v_tx_rings))
> > +	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++) {
> > +		int num_tx_rings = i < v_remainder ? v_tx_rings + 1 : v_tx_rings;
> > +
> > +		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, num_tx_rings))
> >  			goto fail;
> > +	}
> >
> >  	num_stack_tx_queues = enetc_num_stack_tx_queues(priv);
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
index d36af3f8ba31..72ddf8b16271 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
@@ -3049,10 +3049,10 @@  static void enetc_int_vector_destroy(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv, int i)
 int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
 {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->si->pdev;
+	int v_tx_rings, v_remainder;
 	int num_stack_tx_queues;
 	int first_xdp_tx_ring;
 	int i, n, err, nvec;
-	int v_tx_rings;
 
 	nvec = ENETC_BDR_INT_BASE_IDX + priv->bdr_int_num;
 	/* allocate MSIX for both messaging and Rx/Tx interrupts */
@@ -3066,10 +3066,14 @@  int enetc_alloc_msix(struct enetc_ndev_priv *priv)
 
 	/* # of tx rings per int vector */
 	v_tx_rings = priv->num_tx_rings / priv->bdr_int_num;
+	v_remainder = priv->num_tx_rings % priv->bdr_int_num;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++)
-		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, v_tx_rings))
+	for (i = 0; i < priv->bdr_int_num; i++) {
+		int num_tx_rings = i < v_remainder ? v_tx_rings + 1 : v_tx_rings;
+
+		if (enetc_int_vector_init(priv, i, num_tx_rings))
 			goto fail;
+	}
 
 	num_stack_tx_queues = enetc_num_stack_tx_queues(priv);