Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:03:34 -0800
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:     Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Creating cyclecounter and lock member in timecounter structure [
 Was Re: [RFC 1/4] drm/i915/perf: Add support to correlate GPU timestamp with
 system time]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/24/2017 7:01 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2017 12:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We needed inputs on possible optimization that can be done to
>>>>> timecounter/cyclecounter structures/usage.
>>>>> This mail is in response to review of patch
>>>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/188448/.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Chris's observation below, about dozen of timecounter users in the
>>>>> kernel
>>>>> have below structures
>>>>> defined individually:
>>>>>
>>>>> spinlock_t lock;
>>>>> struct cyclecounter cc;
>>>>> struct timecounter tc;
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we move lock and cc to tc? That way it will be convenient.
>>>>> Also it will allow unifying the locking/overflow watchdog handling
>>>>> across
>>>>> all
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like none of the timecounter usage sites has a real need to
>>>> separate
>>>> timecounter and cyclecounter.
>>>
>>> Yes. Will share patch for this change.
>>>
>>>> The lock is a different question. The locking of the various drivers
>>>> differs and I have no idea how you want to handle that. Just sticking
>>>> the
>>>> lock into the datastructure and then not making use of it in the
>>>> timercounter code and leave it to the callsites does not make sense.
>>>
>>> Most of the locks are held around timecounter_read. In some instances it
>>> is held when cyclecounter is updated standalone or is updated along with
>>> timecounter calls.  Was thinking if we move the lock in timecounter
>>> functions, drivers just have to do locking around its operations on
>>> cyclecounter. But then another problem I see is there are variation of
>>> locking calls like lock_irqsave, lock_bh, write_lock_irqsave (some using
>>> rwlock_t). Should this all locking be left to driver only then?
>>
>> You could have the lock in the struct and protect the inner workings in
>> the
>> related core functions.
>>
>> That might remove locking requirements from some of the callers and the
>> others still have their own thing around it.
>
>
> For drivers having static/fixed cyclecounter, we can rely only on lock
> inside timecounter.
> Most of the network drivers update cyclecounter at runtime and they will
> have to rely on two locks if
> we add one to timecounter. This may not be efficient for them. Also the lock
> in timecounter has to be less restrictive (may be seqlock) I guess.
>
> Cc'd Mellanox list for inputs on this.
>
> I have started feeling that the current approach of drivers managing the
> locks is the right one so better leave the
> lock out of timecounter.
>

I agree here,

In mlx5 we rely on our own read/write lock to serialize access to
mlx5_clock struct (mlx5 timecounter and cyclecounter).
the access is not as simple as
lock()
call time_counter_API
unlock()

Sometimes we also explicitly update/adjust timecycles counters with
mlx5 specific calculations after we read the timecounter all inside
our lock.
e.g.
@mlx5_ptp_adjfreq()

    write_lock_irqsave(&clock->lock, flags);
    timecounter_read(&clock->tc);
    clock->cycles.mult = neg_adj ? clock->nominal_c_mult - diff :
                       clock->nominal_c_mult + diff;
    write_unlock_irqrestore(&clock->lock, flags);

So i don't think it will be a simple task to have a generic thread
safe timecounter API, without the need to specifically adjust it for
all driver use-cases.
Also as said above, in runtime it is not obvious in which context the
timecounter will be accessed irq/soft irq/user.

let's keep it as is, and let the driver decide which locking scheme is
most suitable for it.

Thanks,
Saeed.

>> Thanks,
>>
>>         tglx
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists