lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 09/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add support for batch RPMH request
Hi,

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15 2018 at 09:52 -0600, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> @@ -77,12 +82,14 @@ struct rpmh_request {
>>>>> * @cache: the list of cached requests
>>>>> * @lock: synchronize access to the controller data
>>>>> * @dirty: was the cache updated since flush
>>>>> + * @batch_cache: Cache sleep and wake requests sent as batch
>>>>> */
>>>>> struct rpmh_ctrlr {
>>>>> struct rsc_drv *drv;
>>>>> struct list_head cache;
>>>>> spinlock_t lock;
>>>>> bool dirty;
>>>>> + const struct rpmh_request *batch_cache[RPMH_MAX_BATCH_CACHE];
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty confused about why the "batch_cache" is separate from the
>>>> normal cache. As far as I can tell the purpose of the two is the same
>>>> but you have two totally separate code paths and data structures.
>>>>
>>> Due to a hardware limitation, requests made by bus drivers must be set
>>> up in the sleep and wake TCS first before setting up the requests from
>>> other drivers. Bus drivers use batch mode for any and all RPMH
>>> communication. Hence their request are the only ones in the batch_cache.
>>
>>
>> This is totally not obvious and not commented. Why not rename to
>> "priority" instead of "batch"?
>>
>> If the only requirement is that these come first, that's still no
>> reason to use totally separate code paths and mechanisms. These
>> requests can still use the same data structures / functions and just
>> be ordered to come first, can't they? ...or given a boolean
>> "priority" and you can do two passes through your queue: one to do the
>> priority ones and one to do the secondary ones.
>>
>>
> The bus requests have a certain order and cannot be mutated by the
> RPMH driver. It has to be maintained in the TCS in the same order.

Please document this requirement in the code.


> Also, the bus requests have quite a churn during the course of an
> usecase. They are setup and invalidated often.
> It is faster to have them separate and invalidate the whole lot of the
> batch_cache instead of intertwining them with requests from other
> drivers and then figuring out which all must be invalidated and rebuilt
> when the next batch requests comes in. Remember, that requests may come
> from any driver any time and therefore will be mangled if we use the
> same data structure. So to be faster and to avoid having mangled requests
> in the TCS, I have kept the data structures separate.

If you need to find a certain group of requests then can't you just
tag them and it's easy to find them? I'm still not seeing the need
for a whole separate code path and data structure.


>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctrlr->lock, flags);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As part of my overall confusion about why the batch cache is different
>>>> than the normal one: for the normal use case you still call
>>>> rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data() for things you put in your cache, but you
>>>> don't for the batch cache. I still haven't totally figured out what
>>>> rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data() does, but it seems strange that you don't
>>>> do it for the batch cache but you do for the other one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> flush_batch does write to the controller using
>>> rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data()
>>
>>
>> My confusion is that they happen at different times. As I understand it:
>>
>> * For the normal case, you immediately calls
>> rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data() and then later do the rest of the work.
>>
>> * For the batch case, you call both later.
>>
>> Is there a good reason for this, or is it just an arbitrary
>> difference? If there's a good reason, it should be documented.
>>
>>
> In both the cases, the requests are cached in the rpmh library and are
> only sent to the controller only when the flushed. I am not sure the
> work is any different. The rpmh_flush() flushes out batch requests and
> then the requests from other drivers.

OK then, here are the code paths I see:

rpmh_write
=> __rpmh_write
=> cache_rpm_request()
=> (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE): rpmh_rsc_send_data()

rpmh_write_batch
=> (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE): cache_batch()
=> No call to rpmh_rsc_send_data()


Said another way:

* if you call rpmh_write() for something you're going to defer you
will still call cache_rpm_request() _before_ rpmh_write() returns.

* if you call rpmh_write_batch() for something you're going to defer
then you _don't_ call cache_rpm_request() before rpmh_write_batch()
returns.


Do you find a fault in my analysis of the current code? If you see a
fault then please point it out. If you don't see a fault, please say
why the behaviors are different. I certainly understand that
eventually you will call cache_rpm_request() for both cases. It's
just that in one case the call happens right away and the other case
it is deferred.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-15 18:51    [W:0.109 / U:3.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site