Re: [PATCH] PCI: aardvark: Don't rely on jiffies while holding spinlock

From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: aardvark: Don't rely on jiffies while holding spinlock
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:33:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190925113351.0b53d2e9@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190901142303.27815-1-repk@triplefau.lt>

Hello Remi,

Thanks for the patch, I have a few comments/questions below.

On Sun,  1 Sep 2019 16:23:03 +0200
Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt> 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 ?

>  
> -	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.

>  		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.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel