From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
Alexandru M Stan <amstan@chromium.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
ryandcase@chromium.org, rspangler@chromium.org,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:14:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190403181415.GQ112750@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXN-4Ya6cK5wsmARXxP0bJCGpMkoyu1t_fS7hqVFKF0ZBw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:04:16AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> I know some of this was hashed out last night, but I wasn't reading my
> email then to interject ;)
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:05 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > +static int cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> > + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg,
> > + cros_ec_xfer_fn_t fn)
> > +{
> > + struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params params;
> > +
> > + INIT_WORK(¶ms.work, cros_ec_xfer_high_pri_work);
> > + params.ec_dev = ec_dev;
> > + params.ec_msg = ec_msg;
> > + params.fn = fn;
> > + init_completion(¶ms.completion);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This looks a bit ridiculous. Why do the work on a
> > + * different thread if we're just going to block waiting for
> > + * the thread to finish? The key here is that the thread is
> > + * running at high priority but the calling context might not
> > + * be. We need to be at high priority to avoid getting
> > + * context switched out for too long and the EC giving up on
> > + * the transfer.
> > + */
> > + queue_work(system_highpri_wq, ¶ms.work);
>
> Does anybody know what the definition of "too long" is for the phrase
> "Don't queue works which can run for too long" in the documentation?
>
> > + wait_for_completion(¶ms.completion);
>
> I think flush_workqueue() was discussed and rejected, but what about
> flush_work()? Then you don't have to worry about the rest of the
> contents of the workqueue -- just your own work--and I think you could
> avoid the 'completion'.
Indeed, flush_work() seems the right thing to do.
I thought to remember that there is a function to wait for a work to
complete and scanned through workqueue.h for it, but somehow missed it.
> You might also have a tiny race in the current implementation, since
> (a) you can't queue the same work item twice and
> (b) technically, the complete() call is still while the work item is
> running -- you don't really guarantee the work item has finished
> before you continue.
> So the combination of (a) and (b) means that moving from one xfer to
> the next, you might not successfully queue your work at all. You could
> probably test this by checking the return value of queue_work() under
> a heavy EC workload. Avoiding the completion would also avoid this
> race.
Each transfer has it's own work struct (allocated on the stack), hence
a) does not occur. b) is still true, but shouldn't be a problem on
its own.
Anyway, using flush_work() as you suggested is the better solution :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-03 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-03 16:05 [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority Douglas Anderson
2019-04-03 17:04 ` Brian Norris
2019-04-03 17:49 ` Doug Anderson
2019-04-03 17:55 ` Brian Norris
2019-04-03 18:14 ` Matthias Kaehlcke [this message]
2019-04-03 18:17 ` Doug Anderson
2019-04-03 18:30 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2019-04-03 18:39 ` Brian Norris
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=20190403181415.GQ112750@google.com \
--to=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=amstan@chromium.org \
--cc=bleung@chromium.org \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=enric.balletbo@collabora.com \
--cc=groeck@chromium.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=rspangler@chromium.org \
--cc=ryandcase@chromium.org \
--cc=sjg@chromium.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).