Message-ID: <dcee1898-a952-dcd3-8206-ab7c15eb589a@i2se.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:18:37 +0100
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     balbi@...nel.org, johnyoun@...opsys.com
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, amstan@...omium.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        johan@...nel.org, eric@...olt.net, mka@...omium.org,
        john.stultz@...aro.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        jwerner@...omium.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] usb: dwc2: host: Don't retry NAKed transactions
 right away

Hi Felipe,
Hi John,


Am 30.10.2017 um 18:08 schrieb Douglas Anderson:
> 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>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reviewed-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
> Tested-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Add tested-by for Stefan Wahren
> - Sent to Felipe Balbi as candiate to land this.
> - Add Cc for stable (it's always been broken so go as far is as easy)
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Address http://crosreview.com/737520 feedback
>

does it need a resend?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists