linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC/PATCH 3/8] media: platform: mtk-vpu: Support Mediatek VPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1448980272.25447.6.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:31:12 +0800
From:	andrew-ct chen <andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
CC:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Darren Etheridge <detheridge@...com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
	"Peter Griffin" <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Mikhail Ulyanov <mikhail.ulyanov@...entembedded.com>,
	Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
	<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Tiffany Lin <tiffany.lin@...iatek.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Daniel Hsiao <daniel.hsiao@...iatek.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Sakari Ailus" <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC/PATCH 3/8] media: platform: mtk-vpu: Support
 Mediatek VPU

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:36 +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 30 November 2015 at 11:43, andrew-ct chen
> <andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:21 +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 27/11/15 12:10, andrew-ct chen wrote:
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> > >+      memcpy((void *)send_obj->share_buf, buf, len);
> >> >>> > >+      send_obj->len = len;
> >> >>> > >+      send_obj->id = id;
> >> >>> > >+      vpu_cfg_writel(vpu, 0x1, HOST_TO_VPU);
> >> >>> > >+
> >> >>> > >+      /* Wait until VPU receives the command */
> >> >>> > >+      timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(IPI_TIMEOUT_MS);
> >> >>> > >+      do {
> >> >>> > >+              if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >> >>> > >+                      dev_err(vpu->dev, "vpu_ipi_send: IPI timeout!\n");
> >> >>> > >+                      return -EIO;
> >> >>> > >+              }
> >> >>> > >+      } while (vpu_cfg_readl(vpu, HOST_TO_VPU));
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do we need to busy wait every time we communicate with the co-processor?
> >> >> >Couldn't we put this wait*before*  we write to HOST_TO_VPU above.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That way we only spin when there is a need to.
> >> >> >
> >> > Since the hardware VPU only allows that one client sends the command to
> >> > it each time.
> >> > We need the wait to make sure VPU accepted the command and cleared the
> >> > interrupt and then the next command would be served.
> >>
> >> I understand that the VPU  can only have on message outstanding at once.
> >>
> >> I just wonder why we busy wait *after* sending the first command rather
> >> than *before* sending the second one.
> >
> > No other special reasons. Just send one command and wait until VPU gets
> > the command. Then, I think this wait also can be put before we write to
> > HOST_TO_VPU.Is this better than former? May I know the reason?
> 
> Busy waiting is bad; it is a waste of host CPU processor time and/or power.
> 
> When the busy wait occurs after queuing then we will busy wait for
> every command we send.
> 
> If busy wait occurs before next queuing then we will wait for a
> shorter time in total because we have the chance to do something
> useful on the host before we have to wait.
> 

Got it. Thanks a lot for the explanation.
I'll put the busy wait before next queuing in next version. 

> 
> >> Streamed decode/encode typically ends up being rate controlled by
> >> capture or display meaning that in these cases we don't need to busy
> >> wait at all (because by the time we send the next frame the VPU has
> >> already accepted the previous message).
> >
> > For now, only one device "encoder" exists, it is true.
> > But, we'll have encoder and decoder devices, the decode and encode
> > requested to VPU are simultaneous.
> 
> Sure, I accept that lock and busy-wait is an appropriate way to ensure
> safety (assuming the VPU is fairly quick clearing the HOST_TO_VPU
> flag).
> 

The busy wait time is less than 1ms in average.

> 
> > Is this supposed to be removed for this patches and we can add it back
> > if the another device(decoder) is ready for review?
> 
> No I'm not suggesting that.
> 
> I only recommend moving the busy wait *before* end sending of command
> (for efficiency reasons mentioned above).

Ok. Thanks.

> 
> 
> Daniel.


--
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/