lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: ufs: make sure all interrupts are processed
From
Date
On 2/2/2018 8:53 AM, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
> On 1/31/2018 1:09 PM, Avri Altman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can you elaborate how this can even happen?
>> Isn't the interrupt aggregation capability should attend for those cases?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Avri
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-scsi-
>>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Asutosh Das
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:54 AM
>>> To: subhashj@codeaurora.org; cang@codeaurora.org;
>>> vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org; rnayak@codeaurora.org;
>>> vinholikatti@gmail.com; jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
>>> martin.petersen@oracle.com
>>> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; Venkat Gopalakrishnan
>>> <venkatg@codeaurora.org>; Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>; open
>>> list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: ufs: make sure all interrupts are processed
>>>
>>> From: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@codeaurora.org>
>>>
>>> As multiple requests are submitted to the ufs host controller in
>>> parallel there
>>> could be instances where the command completion interrupt arrives
>>> later for a
>>> request that is already processed earlier as the corresponding
>>> doorbell was
>>> cleared when handling the previous interrupt. Read the interrupt
>>> status in a
>>> loop after processing the received interrupt to catch such interrupts
>>> and handle
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@codeaurora.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c index
>>> 8af2af3..58d81de 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>> @@ -5357,19 +5357,30 @@ static irqreturn_t ufshcd_intr(int irq, void
>>> *__hba)
>>>       u32 intr_status, enabled_intr_status;
>>>       irqreturn_t retval = IRQ_NONE;
>>>       struct ufs_hba *hba = __hba;
>>> +    int retries = hba->nutrs;
>>>
>>>       spin_lock(hba->host->host_lock);
>>>       intr_status = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> -    enabled_intr_status =
>>> -        intr_status & ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_INTERRUPT_ENABLE);
>>>
>>> -    if (intr_status)
>>> -        ufshcd_writel(hba, intr_status, REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * There could be max of hba->nutrs reqs in flight and in worst
>>> case
>>> +     * if the reqs get finished 1 by 1 after the interrupt status is
>>> +     * read, make sure we handle them by checking the interrupt status
>>> +     * again in a loop until we process all of the reqs before
>>> returning.
>>> +     */
>>> +    do {
>>> +        enabled_intr_status =
>>> +            intr_status & ufshcd_readl(hba,
>>> REG_INTERRUPT_ENABLE);
>>> +        if (intr_status)
>>> +            ufshcd_writel(hba, intr_status,
>>> REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> +        if (enabled_intr_status) {
>>> +            ufshcd_sl_intr(hba, enabled_intr_status);
>>> +            retval = IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        intr_status = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> +    } while (intr_status && --retries);
>>>
>>> -    if (enabled_intr_status) {
>>> -        ufshcd_sl_intr(hba, enabled_intr_status);
>>> -        retval = IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> -    }
>>>       spin_unlock(hba->host->host_lock);
>>>       return retval;
>>>   }
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
>>> Inc.
>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>> Linux
>>> Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>
>
> Hi
> yes - interrupt aggregation makes sense here. But there were some
> performance concerns with it; well, I don't have the data to back that
> up now though.
> However, I can code it up and check it.
> Will post it in some time.
>
> -asd
>
Hi Avri,
I went through the UFS HCI - v2.1 spec. Specifically, in sec 7.2.3 it
explicitly mentions that the software should determine if new TRs were
completed since the interrupt status was last read/cleared. This step is
independent of aggregation.

So I think the above implementation makes sense. Please let me know if I
understood your concern correctly.

-asd

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-05 05:58    [W:0.066 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site