Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mailbox: bcm-flexrm-mailbox: Set msg_queue_len for each channel

[Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com>]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jassi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Anup,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Broadcom FlexRM ring (i.e. mailbox channel) can handle
>>>>>>>> larger number of messages queued in one FlexRM ring hence
>>>>>>>> this patch sets msg_queue_len for each mailbox channel to
>>>>>>>> be same as RING_MAX_REQ_COUNT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
>>>>>>>> index 9873818..20055a0 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1683,8 +1683,11 @@ static int flexrm_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>                 ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>                 goto fail_free_debugfs_root;
>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>> -       for (index = 0; index < mbox->num_rings; index++)
>>>>>>>> +       for (index = 0; index < mbox->num_rings; index++) {
>>>>>>>> +               mbox->controller.chans[index].msg_queue_len =
>>>>>>>> +                                               RING_MAX_REQ_COUNT;
>>>>>>>>                 mbox->controller.chans[index].con_priv = &mbox->rings[index];
>>>>>>>> +       }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While writing mailbox.c I wasn't unaware that there is the option to
>>>>>>> choose the queue length at runtime.
>>>>>>> The idea was to keep the code as simple as possible. I am open to
>>>>>>> making it a runtime thing, but first, please help me understand how
>>>>>>> that is useful here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand FlexRm has a ring buffer of RING_MAX_REQ_COUNT(1024)
>>>>>>> elements. Any message submitted to mailbox api can be immediately
>>>>>>> written onto the ringbuffer if there is some space.
>>>>>>> Is there any mechanism to report back to a client driver, if its
>>>>>>> message in ringbuffer failed "to be sent"?
>>>>>>> If there isn't any, then I think, in flexrm_last_tx_done() you should
>>>>>>> simply return true if there is some space left in the rung-buffer,
>>>>>>> false otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we have error code in "struct brcm_message" to report back
>>>>>> errors from send_message. In our mailbox clients, we check
>>>>>> return value of mbox_send_message() and also the error code
>>>>>> in "struct brcm_message".
>>>>>>
>>>>> I meant after the message has been accepted in the ringbuffer but the
>>>>> remote failed to receive it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, even this case is handled.
>>>>
>>>> In case of IO errors after message has been put in ring buffer, we get
>>>> completion message with error code and mailbox client drivers will
>>>> receive back "struct brcm_message" with error set.
>>>>
>>>> You can refer flexrm_process_completions() for more details.
>>>>
> It doesn't seem to be what I suggest. I see two issues in
> flexrm_process_completions()
> 1) It calls mbox_send_message(), which is a big NO for a controller
> driver. Why should you have one more message stored outside of
> ringbuffer?

The "last_pending_msg" in each FlexRM ring was added to fit FlexRM
in Mailbox framework.

We don't have any IRQ for TX done so "txdone_irq" out of the question for
FlexRM. We only have completions for both success or failures (IO errors).

This means we have to use "txdone_poll" for FlexRM. For "txdone_poll",
we have to provide last_tx_done() callback. The last_tx_done() callback
is supposed to return true if last send_data() call succeeded.

To implement last_tx_done() in FlexRM driver, we added "last_pending_msg".

When "last_pending_msg" is NULL it means last call to send_data() succeeded
and when "last_pending_msg" is != NULL it means last call to send_data()
did not go through due to lack of space in FlexRM ring. The IRQ worker
of FlexRM ring will automatically queue the message pointed by
"last_pending_message" and clear it. This is why we have mbox_send_message()
call in flexrm_process_completions().

>
> 2) It calls mbox_chan_received_data()  which is for messages received
> from the remote. And not the way to report failed _transmission_, for
> which the api calls back mbox_client.tx_done() .  In your client
> driver please populate mbox_client.tx_done() and see which message is
> reported "sent fine" when.
>
>
>>>>> There seems no such provision. IIANW, then you should be able to
>>>>> consider every message as "sent successfully" once it is in the ring
>>>>> buffer i.e, immediately after mbox_send_message() returns 0.
>>>>> In that case I would think you don't need more than a couple of
>>>>> entries out of MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN ?
>>>>
>>>> What I am trying to suggest is that we can take upto 1024 messages
>>>> in a FlexRM ring but the MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN limits us queuing
>>>> more messages. This issue manifest easily when multiple CPUs
>>>> queues to same FlexRM ring (i.e. same mailbox channel).
>>>>
>>> OK then, I guess we have to make the queue length a runtime decision.
>>
>> Do you agree with approach taken by PATCH5 and PATCH6 to
>> make queue length runtime?
>>
> I agree that we may have to get the queue length from platform, if
> MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN is limiting performance. That will be easier on both
> of us. However I suspect the right fix for _this_ situation is in
> flexrm driver. See above.

The current implementation is trying to model FlexRM using "txdone_poll"
method and that's why we have dependency on MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN

I think what we really need is new method for "txdone" to model ring
manager HW (such as FlexRM). Let's call it "txdone_none".

For "txdone_none", it means there is no "txdone" reporting in HW
and mbox_send_data() should simply return value returned by
send_data() callback. The last_tx_done() callback is not required
for "txdone_none" and MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN also has no
effect on "txdone_none". Both blocking and non-blocking clients
are treated same for "txdone_none".

>
>>>
>>> BTW, is it a practical use case that needs to queue upto 1024
>>> requests? Or are you just testing?
>>
>> Yes, we just need bigger queue length for FlexRM but we
>> choose 1024 (max limit) to avoid changing it again in future.
>>
> How does the client use the api? Does it work in blocking mode i.e, is
> tx_block set ? Is it available somewhere I can have a look?

Yes, our mailbox clients are non-blocking.

We have two mailbox clients (already up-streamed):
1. BCM-SBA-RAID located at drivers/dma/bcm-sba-raid.c
2. SPU2 Crypto located at drivers/crypto/bcm/spu2.c

Regards,
Anup