From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BA5C32774 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FF021850 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726786AbfI0IQt (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:16:49 -0400 Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.193]:36737 "EHLO relay1-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726054AbfI0IQs (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:16:48 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 65.39.69.237 Received: from localhost (unknown [65.39.69.237]) (Authenticated sender: repk@triplefau.lt) by relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 629F0240003; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:25:09 +0200 From: Remi Pommarel To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: aardvark: Don't rely on jiffies while holding spinlock Message-ID: <20190927082508.GB1208@voidbox.localdomain> References: <20190901142303.27815-1-repk@triplefau.lt> <20190925113351.0b53d2e9@windsurf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190925113351.0b53d2e9@windsurf> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, Thanks for the review. On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:33:51AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello Remi, > > Thanks for the patch, I have a few comments/questions below. > > On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:23:03 +0200 > Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > index fc0fe4d4de49..1fa6d04ad7aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > @@ -175,7 +175,8 @@ > > (PCIE_CONF_BUS(bus) | PCIE_CONF_DEV(PCI_SLOT(devfn)) | \ > > PCIE_CONF_FUNC(PCI_FUNC(devfn)) | PCIE_CONF_REG(where)) > > > > -#define PIO_TIMEOUT_MS 1 > > +#define PIO_RETRY_CNT 10 > > +#define PIO_RETRY_DELAY 100 /* 100 us*/ > > > > #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10 > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000 > > @@ -383,17 +384,16 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > { > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > - unsigned long timeout; > > + size_t i; > > Is it common to use a size_t for a loop counter ? It was for me but seem not to be used that much. I can change that to an int. > > > > - timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(PIO_TIMEOUT_MS); > > - > > - while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) { > > + for (i = 0; i < PIO_RETRY_CNT; ++i) { > > I find it more common to use post-increment for loop counters rather > than pre-increment, but that's a really nitpick and I don't care much. > Will change that to post-increment. > > u32 start, isr; > > > > start = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_START); > > isr = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ISR); > > if (!start && isr) > > return 0; > > + udelay(PIO_RETRY_DELAY); > > But the bigger issue is that this change causes a 100us delay at > *every* single PIO read or write operation. > > Indeed, at the first iteration of the loop, the PIO operation has not > completed, so you will always hit the udelay(100) a first time, and > it's only at the second iteration of the loop that the PIO operation > has completed (for successful PIO operations of course, which don't hit > the timeout). > > I took a measurement around wait_pio() with sched_clock before and > after the patch. Before the patch, I have measurements like this (in > nanoseconds): > > [ 1.562801] time = 6000 > [ 1.565310] time = 6000 > [ 1.567809] time = 6080 > [ 1.570327] time = 6080 > [ 1.572836] time = 6080 > [ 1.575339] time = 6080 > [ 1.577858] time = 2720 > [ 1.580366] time = 2720 > [ 1.582862] time = 6000 > [ 1.585377] time = 2720 > [ 1.587890] time = 2720 > [ 1.590393] time = 2720 > > So it takes a few microseconds for each PIO operation. > > With your patch applied: > > [ 2.267291] time = 101680 > [ 2.270002] time = 100880 > [ 2.272852] time = 100800 > [ 2.275573] time = 100880 > [ 2.278285] time = 100800 > [ 2.281005] time = 100880 > [ 2.283722] time = 100800 > [ 2.286444] time = 100880 > [ 2.289264] time = 100880 > [ 2.291981] time = 100800 > [ 2.294690] time = 100800 > [ 2.297405] time = 100800 > > We're jumping to 100us for every PIO read/write operation. To be > honest, I don't know if this is very important, there are not that many > PIO operations, and they are not used in any performance hot path. But > I thought it was worth pointing out the additional delay caused by this > implementation change. Good catch thanks for the measurements, will move to a 2us delay. -- Remi