All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: "Liao, Bard" <bard.liao@intel.com>,
	"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"tiwai@suse.de" <tiwai@suse.de>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com" 
	<ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	"hui.wang@canonical.com" <hui.wang@canonical.com>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org" <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
	"jank@cadence.com" <jank@cadence.com>,
	"Lin, Mengdong" <mengdong.lin@intel.com>,
	"Blauciak, Slawomir" <slawomir.blauciak@intel.com>,
	"Kale, Sanyog R" <sanyog.r.kale@intel.com>,
	Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
	"rander.wang@linux.intel.com" <rander.wang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] soundwire: intel/cadence: merge Soundwire interrupt handlers/threads
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:11:25 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9538103-4c72-722d-0abd-015f9432f17f@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200715045449.GP34333@vkoul-mobl>



On 7/14/20 11:54 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 02-07-20, 10:01, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>   
>>>> Sounds good. Now that you are already in irq thread, does it make sense
>>>> to spawn a worker thread for this and handle it there? Why not do in the
>>>> irq thread itself. Using a thread kind of defeats the whole point behind
>>>> concept of irq threads
>>>
>>> Not sure If you are talking about cdns_update_slave_status_work().
>>> The reason we need to spawn a worker thread in sdw_cdns_irq() is
>>> that we will do sdw transfer which will generate an interrupt when
>>> a slave interrupt is triggered. And the handler will not be invoked if the
>>> previous handler is not return yet.
>>> Please see the scenario below for better explanation.
>>> 1. Slave interrupt arrives
>>> 	2.1 Try to read Slave register and waiting for the transfer response
>>> 	2.2 Get the transfer response interrupt and finish the sdw transfer.
>>> 3. Finish the Slave interrupt handling.
>>>
>>> Interrupts are triggered in step 1 and 2.2, but step 2.2's handler will not be
>>> invoked if step 1's handler is not return yet.
>>> What we do is to spawn a worker thread to do step 2 and return from step 1.
>>> So the handler can be invoked when the transfer response interrupt arrives.
>>
>> To build on Bard's correct answer, the irq thread only takes care of
>> 'immediate' actions, such as command completion, parity or bus clash errors.
>> The rest of the work can be split in
>> a) changes to device state, usually for attachment and enumeration. This is
>> rather slow and will entail regmap syncs.
>> b) device interrupts - typically only for jack detection which is also
>> rather slow.
>>
>> Since this irq thread function is actually part of the entire HDaudio
>> controller interrupt handling, we have to defer the work for cases a) and b)
>> and re-enable the HDaudio interrupts at the end of the irq thread function -
>> see the code I shared earlier.
>>
>> In addition, both a) and b) will result  in transactions over the bus, which
>> will trigger interrupts to signal the command completions. In other words,
>> because of the asynchronous nature of the transactions, we need a two-level
>> implementation. If you look at the previous solution it was the same, the
>> commands were issued in the irq thread and the command completion was
>> handled in the handler, since we had to make the handler minimal with a
>> global GIE interrupt disable we kept the same hierarchy to deal with
>> commands but move it up one level.
>>
>> You could argue that maybe a worker thread is not optimal and could be
>> replaced by something better/faster. Since the jack detection is typically
>> handled with a worker thread in all ASoC codec drivers, we didn't feel the
>> need to optimize further. We did not see any performance impact with this
>> change.
>>
>> Does this answer to your concern?
> 
> The point is that we are already in irq_thread which is designed to
> handle any bottom half processing and can be given priority, spawning of
> worker threads for another bottom half seems unnecessary to me and would
> increase the latency for you.
> 
> I would have handled everything in irq_thread and returned, after all we
> are in bottom half :)
> 
> Is there a reason for worker thread here, if so it is not clear to me
> atm.

I think we explained it at length: the irq thread deals with command 
completion so the command initiation required for enumeration and 
imp-def interrupt needs to be issued in *another* thread.

You cannot have in the same thread a wait_for_completion() and 
complete(), it'd be a by-design deadlock.

Maybe a comparison would help.

previous design for N masters
N+2 Handlers + threads (one IPC, one stream, N SoundWire)
each SoundWire handler takes care of command completion and wakes a 
thread for enumeration and imp-def interrupt.

New design
Single handler for ALL interrupt sources
The handler masks the global interrupt and wakes a thread that deals 
with all interrupt sources, one after the other. The SoundWire thread 
function for each Master will take case of command completion and 
schedules a workqueue for enumeration and imp-def interrupt. The irq 
thread then unmask the global interrupt and returns IRQ_HANDLED.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"tiwai@suse.de" <tiwai@suse.de>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com"
	<ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	"hui.wang@canonical.com" <hui.wang@canonical.com>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org" <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
	"jank@cadence.com" <jank@cadence.com>,
	"Lin, Mengdong" <mengdong.lin@intel.com>,
	"Blauciak, Slawomir" <slawomir.blauciak@intel.com>,
	"Kale, Sanyog R" <sanyog.r.kale@intel.com>,
	Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
	"rander.wang@linux.intel.com" <rander.wang@linux.intel.com>,
	"Liao, Bard" <bard.liao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] soundwire: intel/cadence: merge Soundwire interrupt handlers/threads
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:11:25 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9538103-4c72-722d-0abd-015f9432f17f@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200715045449.GP34333@vkoul-mobl>



On 7/14/20 11:54 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 02-07-20, 10:01, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>   
>>>> Sounds good. Now that you are already in irq thread, does it make sense
>>>> to spawn a worker thread for this and handle it there? Why not do in the
>>>> irq thread itself. Using a thread kind of defeats the whole point behind
>>>> concept of irq threads
>>>
>>> Not sure If you are talking about cdns_update_slave_status_work().
>>> The reason we need to spawn a worker thread in sdw_cdns_irq() is
>>> that we will do sdw transfer which will generate an interrupt when
>>> a slave interrupt is triggered. And the handler will not be invoked if the
>>> previous handler is not return yet.
>>> Please see the scenario below for better explanation.
>>> 1. Slave interrupt arrives
>>> 	2.1 Try to read Slave register and waiting for the transfer response
>>> 	2.2 Get the transfer response interrupt and finish the sdw transfer.
>>> 3. Finish the Slave interrupt handling.
>>>
>>> Interrupts are triggered in step 1 and 2.2, but step 2.2's handler will not be
>>> invoked if step 1's handler is not return yet.
>>> What we do is to spawn a worker thread to do step 2 and return from step 1.
>>> So the handler can be invoked when the transfer response interrupt arrives.
>>
>> To build on Bard's correct answer, the irq thread only takes care of
>> 'immediate' actions, such as command completion, parity or bus clash errors.
>> The rest of the work can be split in
>> a) changes to device state, usually for attachment and enumeration. This is
>> rather slow and will entail regmap syncs.
>> b) device interrupts - typically only for jack detection which is also
>> rather slow.
>>
>> Since this irq thread function is actually part of the entire HDaudio
>> controller interrupt handling, we have to defer the work for cases a) and b)
>> and re-enable the HDaudio interrupts at the end of the irq thread function -
>> see the code I shared earlier.
>>
>> In addition, both a) and b) will result  in transactions over the bus, which
>> will trigger interrupts to signal the command completions. In other words,
>> because of the asynchronous nature of the transactions, we need a two-level
>> implementation. If you look at the previous solution it was the same, the
>> commands were issued in the irq thread and the command completion was
>> handled in the handler, since we had to make the handler minimal with a
>> global GIE interrupt disable we kept the same hierarchy to deal with
>> commands but move it up one level.
>>
>> You could argue that maybe a worker thread is not optimal and could be
>> replaced by something better/faster. Since the jack detection is typically
>> handled with a worker thread in all ASoC codec drivers, we didn't feel the
>> need to optimize further. We did not see any performance impact with this
>> change.
>>
>> Does this answer to your concern?
> 
> The point is that we are already in irq_thread which is designed to
> handle any bottom half processing and can be given priority, spawning of
> worker threads for another bottom half seems unnecessary to me and would
> increase the latency for you.
> 
> I would have handled everything in irq_thread and returned, after all we
> are in bottom half :)
> 
> Is there a reason for worker thread here, if so it is not clear to me
> atm.

I think we explained it at length: the irq thread deals with command 
completion so the command initiation required for enumeration and 
imp-def interrupt needs to be issued in *another* thread.

You cannot have in the same thread a wait_for_completion() and 
complete(), it'd be a by-design deadlock.

Maybe a comparison would help.

previous design for N masters
N+2 Handlers + threads (one IPC, one stream, N SoundWire)
each SoundWire handler takes care of command completion and wakes a 
thread for enumeration and imp-def interrupt.

New design
Single handler for ALL interrupt sources
The handler masks the global interrupt and wakes a thread that deals 
with all interrupt sources, one after the other. The SoundWire thread 
function for each Master will take case of command completion and 
schedules a workqueue for enumeration and imp-def interrupt. The irq 
thread then unmask the global interrupt and returns IRQ_HANDLED.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-15 14:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-23 17:35 [PATCH 0/9] soundwire: intel: revisit SHIM programming Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/9] soundwire: intel: reuse code for wait loops to set/clear bits Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 2/9] soundwire: intel: revisit SHIM programming sequences Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 3/9] soundwire: intel: introduce a helper to arm link synchronization Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 4/9] soundwire: intel: introduce helper for " Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 5/9] soundwire: intel_init: add implementation of sdw_intel_enable_irq() Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 6/9] soundwire: intel_init: use EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 7/9] soundwire: intel/cadence: merge Soundwire interrupt handlers/threads Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-30 16:24   ` Vinod Koul
2020-06-30 16:24     ` Vinod Koul
2020-06-30 16:46     ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-01  5:42       ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-01  5:42         ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-02  7:35         ` Liao, Bard
2020-07-02  7:35           ` Liao, Bard
2020-07-02 15:01           ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-02 15:01             ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-15  4:54             ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-15  4:54               ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-15 14:11               ` Pierre-Louis Bossart [this message]
2020-07-15 14:11                 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 8/9] soundwire: intel: add wake interrupt support Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao
2020-06-30 16:51   ` Vinod Koul
2020-06-30 16:51     ` Vinod Koul
2020-06-30 17:18     ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-06-30 17:18       ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-01  5:56       ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-01  5:56         ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-01 15:25         ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-01 15:25           ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-15  4:50           ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-15  4:50             ` Vinod Koul
2020-07-15 14:22             ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-07-15 14:22               ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-06-23 17:35 ` [PATCH 9/9] Soundwire: intel_init: save Slave(s) _ADR info in sdw_intel_ctx Bard Liao
2020-06-23 17:35   ` Bard Liao

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=b9538103-4c72-722d-0abd-015f9432f17f@linux.intel.com \
    --to=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=bard.liao@intel.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hui.wang@canonical.com \
    --cc=jank@cadence.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mengdong.lin@intel.com \
    --cc=rander.wang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=sanyog.r.kale@intel.com \
    --cc=slawomir.blauciak@intel.com \
    --cc=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    --cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
    --cc=yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com \
    /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.