linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] memory: omap-gpmc: mtd: nand: Support GPMC NAND on non-OMAP platforms

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: <565E7DAC.7060401@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:42:12 +0530
From:	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
CC:	<tony@...mide.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	<ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>, <javier@...hile0.org>,
	<fcooper@...com>, <nsekhar@...com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] memory: omap-gpmc: mtd: nand: Support GPMC NAND
 on non-OMAP platforms

Brian,

On 02/12/15 08:56, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:41:16PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> On 30/11/15 21:54, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:37:03AM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/15 23:23, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:53:22PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>> - Remove NAND IRQ handling from omap-gpmc driver, share the GPMC IRQ
>>>>>> with the omap2-nand driver and handle NAND IRQ events in the NAND driver.
>>>>>> This causes performance increase when using prefetch-irq mode.
>>>>>> 30% increase in read, 17% increase in write in prefetch-irq mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you pinpointed the exact causes for the performance increase, or
>>>>> can you give an educated guess? AIUI, you're reducing the number of
>>>>> interrupts needed for NAND prefetch mode, but you're also removing a bit
>>>>> of abstraction and implementing hooks that look awfully like the
>>>>> existing abstractions:
>>>>>
>>>>> +       int (*nand_irq_enable)(enum gpmc_nand_irq irq);
>>>>> +       int (*nand_irq_disable)(enum gpmc_nand_irq irq);
>>>>> +       void (*nand_irq_clear)(enum gpmc_nand_irq irq);
>>>>> +       u32 (*nand_irq_status)(void);
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not really a problem if there's a good reason for them (brcmnand
>>>>> implements similar hooks because of quirks in the implementation of
>>>>> interrupts across various BRCM SoCs, and it's not worth writing irqchip
>>>>> drivers for those cases). I'm mainly curious for an explanation.
>>>>
>>>> I have both implementations with me. My guess is that the 20% performance
>>>> gain is due to absence of irqchip/irqdomain translation code.
>>>> I haven't investigated further though.
>>>
>>> I don't have much context for whether this makes sense or not. According
>>> to your tests, you're getting ~800K interrupts over ~15 seconds. So
>>> should you start noticing performance hits due to abstraction at 53K
>>> interrupts per second?
>>
>> Yes, this was my understanding.
> 
> Am I computing wrong, or is that a pretty insane rate of interrupts?

I don't have the test board with me right now and so can't tell you
for sure if the mtd tests took 15 seconds or more.

I can try it out on a different board that I have and let you know
for sure about how many interrupts we get per second.
> 
>>> But anyway, I'm not sure that completely answered my question. My
>>> question was whether you were removing the irqchip code solely for
>>> performance reasons, or are there others?
>>
>> Yes. Only for performance reasons.
> 
> Hmm, that's not my favorite answer. I'd prefer that more analysis was
> done here before scrapping irqchip...

I agree. We could retain the irqchip model till we have more satisfying
analysis.

> 
> But maybe that's not too bad. It seems like your patch set overall is a
> net positive for disentangling some of arch/ and drivers/.

:)

> 
> I'll take another pass over your patch set, but if things are looking
> better, how do you expect to merge this? There are significant portions
> that touch at least 2 or 3 different subsystem trees, AFAICT.

Tony could create an immutable branch with all the dts and memory changes.
You could base the mtd changes on top of that?

cheers,
-roger
--
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/