Message-ID: <529E2794.7090205@freebox.fr>
Date:	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:48:52 +0100
From:	Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Leigh Brown <leigh@...inno.co.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian@...nwrt.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Spurious timeouts in mvmdio

On 12/03/2013 02:43 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:40:34PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 07:23:46AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:15:54PM +0100, Nicolas Schichan wrote:
>>>> During 3.13-rc1 testing, I have found out that the mvmdio driver
>>>> would report timeouts on the kernel console:
>>>>
>>>> [   11.011334] orion-mdio orion-mdio: Timeout: SMI busy for too long
>>>>
>>>> The hardware is a MV88F6281 Kirkwood CPU. The mvmdio driver is using
>>>> the irq line 46 (ge00_err).
>>>>
>>>> I am inclined to believe that it is due to the fact that
>>>> wait_event_timeout() is called with a timeout parameter of 1 jiffy
>>>> in orion_mdio_wait_ready(). If the timer interrupt ticks right after
>>>> calling wait_event_timeout(), we may end up spending much less time
>>>> than MVMDIO_SMI_TIMEOUT (1 msec) in wait_event_timeout(), and as a
>>>> result report a timeout as the MDIO access did not complete in such
>>>> a short time.
>>>>
>>>> As to how to fix this, I see two options (I don't know which one
>>>> would be prefered):
>>>>
>>>> - Option 1: always pass a timeout of at least 2 jiffy to wait_event_timeout().
>>>> - Option 2: switch to wait_event_hrtimeout().
>>>>
>>>> I can provide patches for both options.
>>>
>>> Based on yesterday's irc chat, option 1 sounds good.  Here's the dump
>>> from yesterday where Sebastian provided a thorough explanation:
>>>
>>> 11:29 < shesselba> increasing max timeout to 2 ticks at least sounds reasonable
>>> 11:29 < shesselba> 10ms should be enough for every CONFIG_HZ there is
>>>
>>> 11:30 < kos_tom> why make the timeout tied to the ticks? there are functions/macros to convert real time numbers into ticks.
>>> 11:30 < kos_tom> msecs_to_jiffies() or something
>>>
>>> 11:31 < shesselba> kos_tom: it is already using usecs_to_jiffies()
>>> 11:31 < shesselba> the thing is: 1ms is less than a jiffy
>>
>> Yes, and the kernels time conversion functions aren't stupid.  Let's
>> look at this function's implementation:
>>
>> unsigned long usecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int u)
>> {
>>          if (u > jiffies_to_usecs(MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET))
>>                  return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
>> #if HZ <= USEC_PER_SEC && !(USEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
>>          return (u + (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ) - 1) / (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
>> #elif HZ > USEC_PER_SEC && !(HZ % USEC_PER_SEC)
>>          return u * (HZ / USEC_PER_SEC);
>> #else
>>          return (USEC_TO_HZ_MUL32 * u + USEC_TO_HZ_ADJ32)
>>                  >> USEC_TO_HZ_SHR32;
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> Now, assuming HZ=100 and USEC_PER_SEC=1000000, we will use:
>>
>> 	return (u + (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ) - 1) / (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
>>
>> If you ask for 1us, this comes out as:
>>
>> 	return (1 + (1000000 / 100) - 1) / (1000000 / 100);
>>
>> which is one jiffy.  So, for a requested 1us period, you're given a
>> 1 jiffy interval, or 10ms.  For other (sensible) values:
>>
>>          return (USEC_TO_HZ_MUL32 * u + USEC_TO_HZ_ADJ32)
>>                  >> USEC_TO_HZ_SHR32;
>>
>> gets used, which has a similar behaviour.
>>
>> Now, depending on how you use this one jiffy interval, the thing to realise
>> is that with this kind of loop:
>>
>> 	timeout = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(1);
>> 	do {
>> 		something;
>> 	} while (time_is_before_jiffies(timeout));
>>
>> what this equates to is:
>>
>> 	} while (jiffies - timeout < 0);
>>
>> What this means is that the loop breaks at jiffies = timeout, so it can
>> indeed timeout before one tick - within 0 to 10ms for HZ=100.  The problem
>> is not the usecs_to_jiffies(), it's with the implementation.
>
> Ack.
>
>> If you use time_is_before_eq_jiffies() instead, it will also loop if
>> jiffies == timeout, which will give you the additional safety margin -
>> meaning it will timeout after 10 to 20ms instead.
>>
>> You may wish to consider coding this differently as well - if you have
>> the error interrupt, there's no need for this loop.  You only need the
>> loop if you're using usleep_range().  Note the return value of
>> wait_event_timeout() will tell you positively and correctly if the waited
>> condition succeeded or you timed out.
>
> Nicolas, sorry for the confusion.  Mind spinning a v2?

Sure, I'll respin a V2 of the patch with the following:

- loop only when using polling mode.
- set timeout given to wait_event_timeout() to at least 2
- use the return value of wait_event_timeout to check if condition was met or not.

As for the time_is_before_jiffies() use, when end == jiffies, (end - jiffies < 
0) is false, so we'll stay in the loop for one more jiffy so I guess the code 
is Ok in that regard (and as expected I get SMI timeouts in poll mode when I 
replace time_is_before_jiffies() with time_is_before_eq_jiffies()).

By the way time_is_before_jiffies(timeout) does not expand to (jiffies - 
timeout < 0). I have the following:

time_is_before_jiffies(timeout) -> time_after(jiffies, timeout)
time_after(jiffies, timeout) ->  (timeout - jiffies < 0)

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Schichan
Freebox SAS
--
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