From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0FAC432C1 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79FC222C1 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732848AbfIYJeh (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 05:34:37 -0400 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:57543 "EHLO relay7-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732789AbfIYJdz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 05:33:55 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 86.250.200.211 Received: from windsurf (lfbn-1-17395-211.w86-250.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.250.200.211]) (Authenticated sender: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30D7820005; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:33:51 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Remi Pommarel Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: aardvark: Don't rely on jiffies while holding spinlock Message-ID: <20190925113351.0b53d2e9@windsurf> In-Reply-To: <20190901142303.27815-1-repk@triplefau.lt> References: <20190901142303.27815-1-repk@triplefau.lt> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Remi, Thanks for the patch, I have a few comments/questions below. On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:23:03 +0200 Remi Pommarel 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