From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: fix clkgating on/off correctly
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:12:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ccf9079dc1767c7d200fe55b5a849ba0@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201022201825.GA3329812@google.com>
On 2020-10-23 08:53, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2020-10-21 12:52, jaegeuk@kernel.org wrote:
>> > On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
>> > > On 2020-10-21 03:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> > > > The below call stack prevents clk_gating at every IO completion.
>> > > > We can remove the condition, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(), since
>> > > > clkgating_work
>> > > > will check it again.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I think checking ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in either ufshcd_release() or
>> > > gate_work() can break UFS clk gating's functionality.
>> > >
>> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() was introduced to replace hba->lrb_in_use.
>> > > However,
>> > > they are not exactly same - ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() returns true if
>> > > any tag
>> > > assigned from block layer is still in use, but tags are released
>> > > asynchronously
>> > > (through block softirq), meaning it does not reflect the real
>> > > occupation of
>> > > UFS host.
>> > > That is after UFS host finishes all tasks, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
>> > > can still
>> > > return true.
>> > >
>> > > This change only removes the check of ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() in
>> > > ufshcd_release(),
>> > > but having the check of it in gate_work() can still prevent gating
>> > > from
>> > > happening.
>> > > The current change works for you maybe because the tags are release
>> > > before
>> > > hba->clk_gating.delay_ms expires, but if hba->clk_gating.delay_ms is
>> > > shorter
>> > > or
>> > > somehow block softirq is retarded, gate_work() may have chance to see
>> > > ufshcd_any_tag_in_use()
>> > > returns true. What do you think?
>> >
>> > I don't think this breaks clkgating, but fix the wrong condition check
>> > which
>> > prevented gate_work at all. As you mentioned, even if this schedules
>> > gate_work
>> > by racy conditions, gate_work will handle it as a last resort.
>> >
>>
>> If clocks cannot be gated after the last task is cleared from UFS
>> host, then
>> clk gating
>> is broken, no? Assume UFS has completed the last task in its queue, as
>> this
>> change says,
>> ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() is preventing ufshcd_release() from invoking
>> gate_work().
>> Similarly, ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() can prevent gate_work() from doing
>> its
>> real work -
>> disabling the clocks. Do you agree?
>>
>> if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs
>> || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL
>> || ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) ||
>> hba->outstanding_tasks
>> || hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
>> goto rel_lock;
>
> I see the point, but this happens only when clkgate_delay_ms is too
> short
> to give enough time for releasing tag. If it's correctly set, I think
> there'd
> be no problem, unless softirq was delayed by other RT threads which is
> just
> a corner case tho.
>
Yes, we are fixing corner cases, aren't we? I thought you would like to
address it since you are fixing clk gating.
Regards,
Can Guo.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Can Guo.
>>
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Can Guo.
>> > >
>> > > In __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl
>> > > Ihba->lrb_in_use is cleared immediately when UFS driver
>> > > finishes all tasks
>> > >
>> > > > ufshcd_complete_requests(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> > > > ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
>> > > > __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()
>> > > > __ufshcd_release(hba)
>> > > > if (ufshcd_any_tag_in_use() == 1)
>> > > > return;
>> > > > ufshcd_tmc_handler(hba);
>> > > > blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter();
>> > > >
>> > > > Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
>> > > > Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
>> > > > Cc: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>> > > > ---
>> > > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +-
>> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> > > > index b5ca0effe636..cecbd4ace8b4 100644
>> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> > > > @@ -1746,7 +1746,7 @@ static void __ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> > > >
>> > > > if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs || hba->clk_gating.is_suspended ||
>> > > > hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL ||
>> > > > - ufshcd_any_tag_in_use(hba) || hba->outstanding_tasks ||
>> > > > + hba->outstanding_tasks ||
>> > > > hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done)
>> > > > return;
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-26 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-20 19:52 [f2fs-dev] propose some UFS fixes Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: atomic update for clkgating_enable Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21 2:05 ` Can Guo
2020-10-21 4:41 ` jaegeuk
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] scsi: ufs: clear UAC for FFU and RPMB LUNs Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] scsi: ufs: use WQ_HIGHPRI for gating work Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21 0:57 ` Can Guo
2020-10-21 4:52 ` jaegeuk
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] scsi: add more contexts in the ufs tracepoints Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-20 19:52 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: fix clkgating on/off correctly Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-21 2:00 ` Can Guo
2020-10-21 4:52 ` jaegeuk
2020-10-21 6:05 ` Can Guo
2020-10-23 0:53 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-26 3:12 ` Can Guo [this message]
2020-10-26 6:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-10-26 18:47 ` asutoshd
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=ccf9079dc1767c7d200fe55b5a849ba0@codeaurora.org \
--to=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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).