From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>, johnyoun@synopsys.com
Cc: stefan.wahren@i2se.com, amstan@chromium.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
johan@kernel.org, eric@anholt.net, mka@chromium.org,
john.stultz@linaro.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
jwerner@chromium.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] usb: dwc2: host: Don't retry NAKed transactions right away
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:06:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mv2onr3a.fsf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171030170802.14489-1-dianders@chromium.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2960 bytes --]
Hi,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> writes:
> On rk3288-veyron devices on Chrome OS it was found that plugging in an
> Arduino-based USB device could cause the system to lockup, especially
> if the CPU Frequency was at one of the slower operating points (like
> 100 MHz / 200 MHz).
>
> Upon tracing, I found that the following was happening:
> * The USB device (full speed) was connected to a high speed hub and
> then to the rk3288. Thus, we were dealing with split transactions,
> which is all handled in software on dwc2.
> * Userspace was initiating a BULK IN transfer
> * When we sent the SSPLIT (to start the split transaction), we got an
> ACK. Good. Then we issued the CSPLIT.
> * When we sent the CSPLIT, we got back a NAK. We immediately (from
> the interrupt handler) started to retry and sent another SSPLIT.
> * The device kept NAKing our CSPLIT, so we kept ping-ponging between
> sending a SSPLIT and a CSPLIT, each time sending from the interrupt
> handler.
> * The handling of the interrupts was (because of the low CPU speed and
> the inefficiency of the dwc2 interrupt handler) was actually taking
> _longer_ than it took the other side to send the ACK/NAK. Thus we
> were _always_ in the USB interrupt routine.
> * The fact that USB interrupts were always going off was preventing
> other things from happening in the system. This included preventing
> the system from being able to transition to a higher CPU frequency.
>
> As I understand it, there is no requirement to retry super quickly
> after a NAK, we just have to retry sometime in the future. Thus one
> solution to the above is to just add a delay between getting a NAK and
> retrying the transmission. If this delay is sufficiently long to get
> out of the interrupt routine then the rest of the system will be able
> to make forward progress. Even a 25 us delay would probably be
> enough, but we'll be extra conservative and try to delay 1 ms (the
> exact amount depends on HZ and the accuracy of the jiffy and how close
> the current jiffy is to ticking, but could be as much as 20 ms or as
> little as 1 ms).
>
> Presumably adding a delay like this could impact the USB throughput,
> so we only add the delay with repeated NAKs.
>
> NOTE: Upon further testing of a pl2303 serial adapter, I found that
> this fix may help with problems there. Specifically I found that the
> pl2303 serial adapters tend to respond with a NAK when they have
> nothing to say and thus we end with this same sequence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Reviewed-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
This seems too big for -rc or -stable inclusion. In any case, this
doesn't apply to my testing/next branch. Care to rebase and collect acks
you received while doing that?
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-30 17:08 [PATCH v3 1/2] usb: dwc2: host: Don't retry NAKed transactions right away Douglas Anderson
2017-12-05 16:18 ` Stefan Wahren
2017-12-06 6:06 ` John Youn
2017-12-12 11:06 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2017-12-12 18:31 ` Doug Anderson
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=87mv2onr3a.fsf@linux.intel.com \
--to=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=amstan@chromium.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=eric@anholt.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=johnyoun@synopsys.com \
--cc=jwerner@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefan.wahren@i2se.com \
/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).