[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UJC5d+uH7FiHvfLWZ7p1e5A5iiFMGPF6DFo0DjcY2Kxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:01:43 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: John Youn <johnyoun@...opsys.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc2: host: Don't retry NAKed transactions right away
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> 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@...omium.org>
> ---
>
> drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h | 1 +
> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd.c | 7 ++++
> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd.h | 9 +++++
> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_intr.c | 12 +++++++
> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 5 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
One note is that I got some review feedback on the Chrome OS gerrit at
<http://crosreview.com/737520>. I'll plan to spin with that feedback
tomorrow unless I hear otherwise. Thanks! :)
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists