Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI/EC: Cleanup QR_SC command processing by adding a kernel thread to poll EC events.

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 01:21:51 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi, Rafael
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@rjwysocki.net]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:38 AM
> > 
> > On Thursday, November 13, 2014 02:52:03 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > Hi, Rafael
> > >
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@rjwysocki.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:59 AM
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 13, 2014 02:31:08 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > > > Hi, Rafael
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@rjwysocki.net]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:17 AM
> > > >
> > > > [cut]
> > > >
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static int ec_create_event_poller(struct acpi_ec *ec)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	struct task_struct *t;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	t = kthread_run(acpi_ec_event_poller, ec, "ec/gpe-%lu", ec->gpe);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does it have to be a kernel thread?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about using a workqueue instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually I just want to use threaded IRQ here in response to Andi Kleen's comment.
> > > > > If acpi_irq is registered as threaded IRQ, then acpi_ec_event_poller() will be the
> > > > > callback from it.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > > Since ACPICA is not ready for threaded IRQ currently, we cannot proceed at this point.
> > > > > So I copied the threaded IRQ code from kernel/irq/manage.c here to prepare threaded IRQ logics.
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear, no.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't the way forward here.
> > > >
> > > > > Using a separate work queue, we didn't decrease the kernel thread count.
> > > >
> > > > Why does that matter at all?
> > > >
> > > > > And the code written for the work item cannot be derived when things are
> > > > > switched to the threaded IRQ.
> > > > > So I used kthread here.
> > > >
> > > > Please use a workqueue instead.  If/when we need to switch over to threaded
> > > > IRQs, we'll do the work then.  For now, let's not complicate things more
> > > > than necessary.
> > >
> > > It seems we need the thread because we will move polling code from ec_poll() to acpi_ec_event_poller().
> > > This will happen right after these cleanups.
> > > That's the threaded IRQ logic - IRQ is polled in the thread.
> > > We cannot achieve this using work queue.
> > 
> > OK
> > 
> > In that case I'm not going to apply this patch, because it is not a cleanup.
> > It doesn't belong to this series, but to the series that will move the
> > polling code.
> 
> If we'll defer some execution and we know there will only be one execution corresponding to one indication, work item can fit.
> If we'll poll something or there is no such 1 to 1 correspondence, using work queue may accumulate useless work items.
> 
> We have the work item to evaluate _Qxx in the EC driver, for the IRQ indications, IMO, it's better to use an IRQ poller thread.
> And it's easier for me to control future improvements using kthread:
> 1. We need the SCI_EVT draining support for Samsung firmware. For Samsung, 1 SCI_EVT indication may mean several QR_EC transactions as we cannot rely on SCI_EVT value, it can be cleared by Samsung firmware before 0x00 is returned.
> 2. For Acer firmware, firmware will refuse to respond QR_EC if SCI_EVT=0 and further transactions will be blocked. Whether a transaction abort support is needed is unclear to me now because I'm not sure if this will appear on other platforms. When supporting this, I may face the difficulty to abort several queued up work items but for IRQ poller thread, I only need to abort the very 1 query transaction.
> 
> > Does patch [6/6] depend on [5/6]?
> 
> Patch [6/6] depends on [5/6].
> So you can just take the patch 1-4 first..
> I'll ask Samsung users to test an improved event draining support based on the poller thread and re-send the patch [5/5] and patch [6/6] after that.

OK

So patches [1-4/6] queued up for 3.19, thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.