All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@android.com,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: fix clkgating on/off correctly
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:53:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022201825.GA3329812@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3e58a89474d23f1b9446fe2e38a7426@codeaurora.org>

On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-10-21 12:52, jaegeuk@kernel.org wrote:
> > On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
> > > On 2020-10-21 03:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > The below call stack prevents clk_gating at every IO completion.
> > > > We can remove the condition, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(), since
> > > > clkgating_work
> > > > will check it again.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I think checking ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in either ufshcd_release() or
> > > gate_work() can break UFS clk gating's functionality.
> > > 
> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() was introduced to replace hba->lrb_in_use.
> > > However,
> > > they are not exactly same - ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() returns true if
> > > any tag
> > > assigned from block layer is still in use, but tags are released
> > > asynchronously
> > > (through block softirq), meaning it does not reflect the real
> > > occupation of
> > > UFS host.
> > > That is after UFS host finishes all tasks, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
> > > can still
> > > return true.
> > > 
> > > This change only removes the check of ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in
> > > ufshcd_release(),
> > > but having the check of it in gate_work() can still prevent gating
> > > from
> > > happening.
> > > The current change works for you maybe because the tags are release
> > > before
> > > hba->clk_gating.delay_ms expires, but if hba->clk_gating.delay_ms is
> > > shorter
> > > or
> > > somehow block softirq is retarded, gate_work() may have chance to see
> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
> > > returns true. What do you think?
> > 
> > I don't think this breaks clkgating, but fix the wrong condition check
> > which
> > prevented gate_work at all. As you mentioned, even if this schedules
> > gate_work
> > by racy conditions, gate_work will handle it as a last resort.
> > 
> 
> If clocks cannot be gated after the last task is cleared from UFS host, then
> clk gating
> is broken, no? Assume UFS has completed the last task in its queue, as this
> change says,
> ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() is preventing ufshcd_release() from invoking
> gate_work().
> Similarly, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() can prevent gate_work() from doing its
> real work -
> disabling the clocks. Do you agree?
> 
>         if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs
>                 || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL
>                 || ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) || hba->outstanding_tasks
>                 || hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
>                 goto rel_lock;

I see the point, but this happens only when clkgate_delay_ms is too short
to give enough time for releasing tag. If it's correctly set, I think there'd
be no problem, unless softirq was delayed by other RT threads which is just
a corner case tho.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Can Guo.
> 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Can Guo.
> > > 
> > > In __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl
> > > Ihba->lrb_in_use is cleared immediately when UFS driver
> > > finishes all tasks
> > > 
> > > > ufshcd_complete_requests(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > > >   ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
> > > >     __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
> > > >       __ufshcd_release(hba)
> > > >         if (ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() == 1)
> > > >            return;
> > > >   ufshcd_tmc_handler(hba);
> > > >     blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter();
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
> > > > Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
> > > > Cc: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > index b5ca0effe636..cecbd4ace8b4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > @@ -1746,7 +1746,7 @@ static void __ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > > >
> > > >  	if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs || hba->clk_gating.is_suspended ||
> > > >  	    hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL ||
> > > > -	    ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) || hba->outstanding_tasks ||
> > > > +	    hba->outstanding_tasks ||
> > > >  	    hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
> > > >  		return;

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: fix clkgating on/off correctly
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:53:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022201825.GA3329812@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3e58a89474d23f1b9446fe2e38a7426@codeaurora.org>

On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-10-21 12:52, jaegeuk@kernel.org wrote:
> > On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
> > > On 2020-10-21 03:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > The below call stack prevents clk_gating at every IO completion.
> > > > We can remove the condition, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(), since
> > > > clkgating_work
> > > > will check it again.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I think checking ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in either ufshcd_release() or
> > > gate_work() can break UFS clk gating's functionality.
> > > 
> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() was introduced to replace hba->lrb_in_use.
> > > However,
> > > they are not exactly same - ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() returns true if
> > > any tag
> > > assigned from block layer is still in use, but tags are released
> > > asynchronously
> > > (through block softirq), meaning it does not reflect the real
> > > occupation of
> > > UFS host.
> > > That is after UFS host finishes all tasks, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
> > > can still
> > > return true.
> > > 
> > > This change only removes the check of ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in
> > > ufshcd_release(),
> > > but having the check of it in gate_work() can still prevent gating
> > > from
> > > happening.
> > > The current change works for you maybe because the tags are release
> > > before
> > > hba->clk_gating.delay_ms expires, but if hba->clk_gating.delay_ms is
> > > shorter
> > > or
> > > somehow block softirq is retarded, gate_work() may have chance to see
> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
> > > returns true. What do you think?
> > 
> > I don't think this breaks clkgating, but fix the wrong condition check
> > which
> > prevented gate_work at all. As you mentioned, even if this schedules
> > gate_work
> > by racy conditions, gate_work will handle it as a last resort.
> > 
> 
> If clocks cannot be gated after the last task is cleared from UFS host, then
> clk gating
> is broken, no? Assume UFS has completed the last task in its queue, as this
> change says,
> ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() is preventing ufshcd_release() from invoking
> gate_work().
> Similarly, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() can prevent gate_work() from doing its
> real work -
> disabling the clocks. Do you agree?
> 
>         if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs
>                 || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL
>                 || ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) || hba->outstanding_tasks
>                 || hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
>                 goto rel_lock;

I see the point, but this happens only when clkgate_delay_ms is too short
to give enough time for releasing tag. If it's correctly set, I think there'd
be no problem, unless softirq was delayed by other RT threads which is just
a corner case tho.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Can Guo.
> 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Can Guo.
> > > 
> > > In __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl
> > > Ihba->lrb_in_use is cleared immediately when UFS driver
> > > finishes all tasks
> > > 
> > > > ufshcd_complete_requests(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > > >   ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
> > > >     __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
> > > >       __ufshcd_release(hba)
> > > >         if (ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() == 1)
> > > >            return;
> > > >   ufshcd_tmc_handler(hba);
> > > >     blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter();
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
> > > > Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
> > > > Cc: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > index b5ca0effe636..cecbd4ace8b4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > > @@ -1746,7 +1746,7 @@ static void __ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > > >
> > > >  	if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs || hba->clk_gating.is_suspended ||
> > > >  	    hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL ||
> > > > -	    ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) || hba->outstanding_tasks ||
> > > > +	    hba->outstanding_tasks ||
> > > >  	    hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
> > > >  		return;


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-23  0:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-20 19:52 propose some UFS fixes Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: atomic update for clkgating_enable Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52   ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21  2:05   ` Can Guo
2020-10-21  2:05     ` [f2fs-dev] " Can Guo
2020-10-21  4:41     ` jaegeuk
2020-10-21  4:41       ` [f2fs-dev] " jaegeuk
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] scsi: ufs: clear UAC for FFU and RPMB LUNs Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52   ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] scsi: ufs: use WQ_HIGHPRI for gating work Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52   ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21  0:57   ` Can Guo
2020-10-21  0:57     ` [f2fs-dev] " Can Guo
2020-10-21  4:52     ` jaegeuk
2020-10-21  4:52       ` [f2fs-dev] " jaegeuk
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] scsi: add more contexts in the ufs tracepoints Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52   ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: fix clkgating on/off correctly Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52   ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21  2:00   ` Can Guo
2020-10-21  2:00     ` [f2fs-dev] " Can Guo
2020-10-21  4:52     ` jaegeuk
2020-10-21  4:52       ` [f2fs-dev] " jaegeuk
2020-10-21  6:05       ` Can Guo
2020-10-21  6:05         ` [f2fs-dev] " Can Guo
2020-10-23  0:53         ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2020-10-23  0:53           ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-26  3:12           ` Can Guo
2020-10-26  3:12             ` [f2fs-dev] " Can Guo
2020-10-26  6:19             ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-26  6:19               ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-26 18:47           ` asutoshd
2020-10-26 18:47             ` [f2fs-dev] " asutoshd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201022201825.GA3329812@google.com \
    --to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
    --cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
    --cc=cang@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.