Message-Id: <1262282633.3055.40.camel@palomino.walls.org>
Date:	Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:03:53 -0500
From:	Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@...il.com>,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 23:35 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:29:12PM -0500, Andy Walls wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 18:08 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
> > > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
> > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:18:50PM -0500, Vikram Dhillon wrote:
> > > > IMHO you can process elements rather than bytes, which is a good
> > > > improvement, but then again its my opinion, if others don't like it
> > > > then we can always change it :D
> > > 
> > > Right, I was not arguing against having a record-oriented interface, I
> > > was questioning the utility of processing several records at a time.
> > > Kfifo users that I have seen so far were working in a record-at-a-time
> > > mode.
> > 
> > I have a use case in linux/drivers/media/video/cx23885/cx23888-ir.c
> > right now.
> > 
> > I have a hardware fifo that can hold up to 8 values, 17 bits each - and
> > the high bit of the value is a flag indicating if more data is in the
> > hardware fifo.
> > 
> > The hardware fifo watermark for generating an interrupt is 4 or more
> > values in the hardware fifo.
> > 
> > I use a kfifo that needs to be protected with a spinlock.
> > 
> > It in much better in the IRQ context to drain the hardware fifo and then
> > put records in the kfifo all at once (or at least in groups of 8 or less
> > but usually greater than 1).
> 
> Hmm, so there you have a local buffer that you fill by reading from the
> device word by word, then you copy that data over into fifo and then you
> upper layer again fetches that fifo as byte stream...

Well technically the upper layer should be fetching data as a 4 byte
(u32 record) stream, but at the time I wrote my usage, kfifo only had
byte oriented usage for reading out of the kfifo.

Now that the spinlock has moved out of kfifo, I suppose when I convert
to record based usage, I don't strictly need multiple record puts into
the kfifo.  Since now my code can have fine grained control of when the
spinlock is taken and released, when I move to record based, I could
just put records into the kfifo one at a time with little penalty.

It really doesn't matter to me since the spinlock acquire and release,
saving and restoring the processor flags, was the big penalty.


> I'd probably simply move the processing that you are doing in
> cx23888_ir_rx_read() into cx23888_ir_irq_handler() (since it is very
> simple) and then used kfifo in simple byte mode (since that is what
> upper layer seem to expect).

Well, the the upper layer is really in a work handler that calls

	cx23885-input.c:cx23885_input_process_pulse_widths_rc5()

for RC-5 decoding for example.  It ends up calling cx23888_ir_rx_read()
to read in a number of 4 bytes (u32) pulse width records in a batch.  It
then feeds those records through the RC-5 decoding process one record at
a time (because that was the simple way to implement a decoding state
machine).

The idea was to avoid all the spinlock acquire release penalties
associtaed with accessing the kfifo, and to avoid contention with the
IRQ handler.


(BTW, I split the unit conversion work out to cx23888_ir_rx_read() with
IRQ latency in mind.  Since this is a video capture card with other,
more important interrupts to service, I just didn't want to spend any
extra CPU cycles in the cx23888_ir_irq_handler than necessary.  A work
handler context calling into cx23888_ir_rx_read() is a preferable
context in which to perform unit conversions compared to an IRQ context,
IMO.)
	


So in summary, I think any need I had for multiple record kfifo access
can be worked around by having the spinlock separate from the kfifo
calls.  However, with multiple record kfifo access methods available,
I'd likely find a convenient use for such methods.

Regards,
Andy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists