On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 07:04:35PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:37:58AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 28-05-20, 13:20, Rob Herring wrote: > > > Whether Linux > > > requires serializing mailbox accesses is a separate issue. On that side, > > > it seems silly to not allow driving the h/w in the most efficient way > > > possible. > > > > That's exactly what we are trying to say. The hardware allows us to > > write all 32 bits in parallel, without any hardware issues, why > > shouldn't we do that ? The delay (which Sudeep will find out, he is > > facing issues with hardware access because of lockdown right now) > > OK, I was able to access the setup today. I couldn't reach a point > where I can do measurements as the system just became unusable with > one physical channel instead of 2 virtual channels as in my patches. > > My test was simple. Switch to schedutil and read sensors periodically > via sysfs. > > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected! > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120) > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120) > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected! > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120) > arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected! > > With trace enabled I can see even cpufreq_set timing out. Sample trace > output: > > bash-1019 [005] 1149.452340: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1537 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=0 poll=1 > bash-1019 [005] 1149.452407: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1537 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=0 status=0 > bash-1526 [000] 1149.472553: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1538 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0 > -0 [001] 1149.472733: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1539 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [001] 1149.472842: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1539 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110 > -0 [001] 1149.483040: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1540 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [001] 1149.483043: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1540 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > rs:main-543 [003] 1149.493031: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1541 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > rs:main-543 [003] 1149.493047: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1541 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > -0 [000] 1149.507033: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1542 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [000] 1149.507044: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1542 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > bash-1526 [000] 1149.516068: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1538 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 status=-110 > bash-1526 [000] 1149.516559: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1543 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0 > -0 [001] 1149.516729: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1544 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [001] 1149.516837: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1544 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110 > ksoftirqd/0-9 [000] 1149.519065: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1545 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > ksoftirqd/0-9 [000] 1149.519072: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1545 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > -0 [001] 1149.526878: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1546 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [001] 1149.526882: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1546 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > -0 [000] 1149.551119: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1547 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [000] 1149.551138: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1547 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0 > bash-1526 [000] 1149.560191: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1543 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 status=-110 > bash-1526 [000] 1149.560690: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1548 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0 > -0 [001] 1149.560859: scmi_xfer_begin: transfer_id=1549 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1 > -0 [001] 1149.560968: scmi_xfer_end: transfer_id=1549 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110 > > protocol_id=19 is cpufreq and 21 is sensor. This is simplest test and > I can easily generate more timeouts starting some stress test with DVFS. > I just realised that we have the timing info in the traces and you will observe the sensor readings take something in order of 100us to 500-600us or even more based on which sensor is being read. While we have 100us timeout for cpufreq opp set. I am attaching full trace now. -- Regards, Sudeep