lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 6/6] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Allow using free WAKE TCS for active request
From
Date
Hi,

On 3/28/2020 12:12 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:04 AM Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> Why can't rpmh_write()
>>> / rpmh_write_async() / rpmh_write_batch() just always unconditionally
>>> mark the cache dirty? Are there really lots of cases when those calls
>>> are made and they do nothing?
>> At rpmh.c, it doesn't know that rpmh-rsc.c worked on borrowed TCS to finish the request.
>>
>> We should not blindly mark caches dirty everytime.
> In message ID "5a5274ac-41f4-b06d-ff49-c00cef67aa7f@codeaurora.org"
> which seems to be missing from the archives, you said:
>
>> yes we should trust callers not to send duplicate data
> ...you can see some reference to it in my reply:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VPSahhK71k_D+nfL1=5QE5sKMQT=6zzyEF7+JWMcTxsg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> If callers are trusted to never send duplicate data then ever call to
> rpmh_write() will make a change. ...and thus the cache should always
> be marked dirty, no? Also note that since rpmh_write() to "active"
> also counts as a write to "wake" even those will dirty the cache.
>
> Which case are you expecting a rpmh_write() call to not dirty the cache?
Ok, i will remove marking cache dirty here.
>
>
>>> ...interestingly after your patch I guess now I guess tcs_invalidate()
>>> no longer needs spinlocks since it's only ever called from PM code on
>>> the last CPU. ...if you agree, I can always do it in my cleanup
>>> series. See:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Xp1o68HnC2-hMnffDDsi+jjgc9pNrdNuypjQZbS5K4nQ@mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>> -Doug
>> There are other RSCs which use same driver, so lets keep spinlock.
> It is really hard to try to write keeping in mind these "other RSCs"
> for which there is no code upstream. IMO we should write the code
> keeping in mind what is supported upstream and then when those "other
> RSCs" get added we can evaluate their needs.

Agree but i would insist not remove locks in your cleanup/documentation
series which are already there.

These will be again need to be added.

The locks don't cause any issue being there since only last cpu is
invoking rpmh_flush() at present.

Adding support for other RSCs is in my to do list, and when that is
being done we can re-evaluate and

remove if not required.

>
> Specifically when reasoning about rpmh.c and rpmh-rsc.c I can only
> look at the code that's there now and decide whether it is race free
> or there are races. Back when I was analyzing the proposal to do
> rpmh_flush() all the time (not from PM code) it felt like there were a
> bunch of races, especially in the zero-active-TCS case. Most of the
> races go away when you assume that rpmh_flush() is only ever called
> from the PM code when nobody could be in the middle of an active
> transfer.
>
> If we are ever planning to call rpmh_flush() from another place we
> need to re-look at all those races.
Sure. we can re-look all cases.
>
>
> -Doug
Thanks,
Maulik

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-31 10:58    [W:0.061 / U:8.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site