Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PCI: iproc: Add INTx support with better modeling

[Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>]

On 12/4/19 8:07 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:29:51AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:09 AM Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/3/19 11:27 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:55 PM Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:27:02AM +0530, Srinath Mannam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> +     /* go through INTx A, B, C, D until all interrupts are handled */
>>>>>> +     do {
>>>>>> +             status = iproc_pcie_read_reg(pcie, IPROC_PCIE_INTX_CSR);
>>>>>
>>>>> By performing this read once and outside of the do/while loop you may improve
>>>>> performance. I wonder how probable it is to get another INTx whilst handling
>>>>> one?
>>>>
>>>> May I ask how it can be improved?
>>>> One read will be needed any way, and so does this code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess the current code will cause the IPROC_PCIE_INTX_CSR register to
>>> be read TWICE, if it's ever set to start with.
>>>
>>> But then if we do it outside of the while loop, if we ever receive an
>>> interrupt while servicing one, the interrupt will still need to be
>>> serviced, and in this case, it will cause additional context switch
>>> overhead by going out and back in the interrupt context.
> 
> Yes it's a trade off - if you dropped the do/while loop and thus had a single
> read you'd reduce the overhead on interrupt handling in every case except
> where another INTx is received whilst in this function. But as you point out
> each time that does happen you'll pay the penalty of a context switch.
>

Exactly, it's a tradeoff between: 1) saving one register read (which is 
likely in the 10th of nanosecond range) in all INTx handling; and 2) 
saving context switches (which is likely in 10th of microsecond range) 
in cases when we have multiple INTx when servicing it.

The current implementation takes 2), which I thought it makes sense.

> I don't have any knowledge of this platform so I have no idea if such a change
> would be good/bad or material. However I thought I'd point it out. Looking at
> the other controller drivers, some handle in a loop and some don't.
> 
> 
>>>
>>> My take is that it's probably more ideal to leave this portion of code
>>> as it is.
>>
>> Can't we simple drop a do-while completely and leave only
>> for_each_set_bit() loop?
>>

Like both Andrew and I pointed out. There's a tradeoff here. Could you 
please help to justify why you favor 1) than 2)?

> 
> I'm happy either way.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Murray
> 
>>>
>>>>>> +             for_each_set_bit(bit, &status, PCI_NUM_INTX) {
>>>>>> +                     virq = irq_find_mapping(pcie->irq_domain, bit);
>>>>>> +                     if (virq)
>>>>>> +                             generic_handle_irq(virq);
>>>>>> +                     else
>>>>>> +                             dev_err(dev, "unexpected INTx%u\n", bit);
>>>>>> +             }
>>>>>> +     } while ((status & SYS_RC_INTX_MASK) != 0);
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> With Best Regards,
>> Andy Shevchenko