From: "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@aj.id.au>
To: "Joel Stanley" <joel@jms.id.au>
Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
"Corey Minyard" <minyard@acm.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs: Poll OBF briefly to reduce OBE latency
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 13:36:51 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f6a85e5e-a3b1-4e5c-9db6-1222dcabd780@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACPK8XdnFPXZuzAaSMOUnV6ng9y2_ZMcAff12q8Zxvr2HJZy-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022, at 10:20, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 14:48, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> The ASPEED KCS devices don't provide a BMC-side interrupt for the host
>> reading the output data register (ODR). The act of the host reading ODR
>> clears the output buffer full (OBF) flag in the status register (STR),
>> informing the BMC it can transmit a subsequent byte.
>>
>> On the BMC side the KCS client must enable the OBE event *and* perform a
>> subsequent read of STR anyway to avoid races - the polling provides a
>> window for the host to read ODR if data was freshly written while
>> minimising BMC-side latency.
>>
>
> Fixes...?
Is it a fix though? It's definitely an *improvement* in behaviour, but
the existing behaviour also wasn't *incorrect*, just kinda unfortunate
under certain timings? Dunno. I'm probably splitting hairs.
In any case, if we do want a fixes line:
Fixes: 28651e6c4237 ("ipmi: kcs_bmc: Allow clients to control KCS IRQ state")
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
>
> Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Thanks!
>
>> ---
>> drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc_aspeed.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc_aspeed.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc_aspeed.c
>> index cdc88cde1e9a..417e5a3ccfae 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc_aspeed.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc_aspeed.c
>> @@ -399,13 +399,31 @@ static void aspeed_kcs_check_obe(struct timer_list *timer)
>> static void aspeed_kcs_irq_mask_update(struct kcs_bmc_device *kcs_bmc, u8 mask, u8 state)
>> {
>> struct aspeed_kcs_bmc *priv = to_aspeed_kcs_bmc(kcs_bmc);
>> + int rc;
>> + u8 str;
>
> str is status, it would be good to spell that out in full.
I guess if it trips enough people up we can rename it later.
>
>>
>> /* We don't have an OBE IRQ, emulate it */
>> if (mask & KCS_BMC_EVENT_TYPE_OBE) {
>> - if (KCS_BMC_EVENT_TYPE_OBE & state)
>> - mod_timer(&priv->obe.timer, jiffies + OBE_POLL_PERIOD);
>> - else
>> + if (KCS_BMC_EVENT_TYPE_OBE & state) {
>> + /*
>> + * Given we don't have an OBE IRQ, delay by polling briefly to see if we can
>> + * observe such an event before returning to the caller. This is not
>> + * incorrect because OBF may have already become clear before enabling the
>> + * IRQ if we had one, under which circumstance no event will be propagated
>> + * anyway.
>> + *
>> + * The onus is on the client to perform a race-free check that it hasn't
>> + * missed the event.
>> + */
>> + rc = read_poll_timeout_atomic(aspeed_kcs_inb, str,
>> + !(str & KCS_BMC_STR_OBF), 1, 100, false,
>> + &priv->kcs_bmc, priv->kcs_bmc.ioreg.str);
>> + /* Time for the slow path? */
>
> The mod_timer is the slow path? The question mark threw me.
Yeah, mod_timer() is the slow path; read_poll_timeout_atomic() is the
fast path and we've exhausted the time we're willing to wait there if
we get -ETIMEDOUT.
The comment was intended as a description for the question posed by the
condition. It made sense in my head but maybe it's confusing more than
it is enlightening?
Andrew
>
>> + if (rc == -ETIMEDOUT)
>> + mod_timer(&priv->obe.timer, jiffies + OBE_POLL_PERIOD);
>> + } else {
>> del_timer(&priv->obe.timer);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> if (mask & KCS_BMC_EVENT_TYPE_IBF) {
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-06 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-12 14:47 [PATCH] ipmi: kcs: Poll OBF briefly to reduce OBE latency Andrew Jeffery
2022-10-05 23:12 ` Andrew Jeffery
2022-10-05 23:54 ` Corey Minyard
2022-10-06 3:08 ` Andrew Jeffery
2022-10-05 23:50 ` Joel Stanley
2022-10-06 3:06 ` Andrew Jeffery [this message]
2022-10-06 14:09 ` Corey Minyard
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=f6a85e5e-a3b1-4e5c-9db6-1222dcabd780@app.fastmail.com \
--to=andrew@aj.id.au \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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).