[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190403210436.GS112750@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:04:36 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
amstan@...omium.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
sjg@...omium.org, briannorris@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org,
broonie@...nel.org, ryandcase@...omium.org, rspangler@...omium.org,
heiko@...ech.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at
high priority
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The software running on the Chrome OS Embedded Controller (cros_ec)
> handles SPI transfers in a bit of a wonky way. Specifically if the EC
> sees too long of a delay in a SPI transfer it will give up and the
> transfer will be counted as failed. Unfortunately the timeout is
> fairly short, though the actual number may be different for different
> EC codebases.
>
> We can end up tripping the timeout pretty easily if we happen to
> preempt the task running the SPI transfer and don't get back to it for
> a little while.
>
> Historically this hasn't been a _huge_ deal because:
> 1. On old devices Chrome OS used to run PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. That meant
> we were pretty unlikely to take a big break from the transfer.
> 2. On recent devices we had faster / more processors.
> 3. Recent devices didn't use "cros-ec-spi-pre-delay". Using that
> delay makes us more likely to trip this use case.
> 4. For whatever reasons (I didn't dig) old kernels seem to be less
> likely to trip this.
> 5. For the most part it's kinda OK if a few transfers to the EC fail.
> Mostly we're just polling the battery or doing some other task
> where we'll try again.
>
> Even with the above things, this issue has reared its ugly head
> periodically. We could solve this in a nice way by adding reliable
> retries to the EC protocol [1] or by re-designing the code in the EC
> codebase to allow it to wait longer, but that code doesn't ever seem
> to get changed. ...and even if it did, it wouldn't help old devices.
>
> It's now time to finally take a crack at making this a little better.
> This patch isn't guaranteed to make every cros_ec SPI transfer
> perfect, but it should improve things by a few orders of magnitude.
> Specifically you can try this on a rk3288-veyron Chromebook (which is
> slower and also _does_ need "cros-ec-spi-pre-delay"):
> md5sum /dev/zero &
> md5sum /dev/zero &
> md5sum /dev/zero &
> md5sum /dev/zero &
> while true; do
> cat /sys/class/power_supply/sbs-20-000b/charge_now > /dev/null;
> done
> ...before this patch you'll see boatloads of errors. After this patch I
> don't see any in the testing I did.
>
> The way this patch works is by effectively boosting the priority of
> the cros_ec transfers. As far as I know there is no simple way to
> just boost the priority of the current process temporarily so the way
> we accomplish this is by queuing the work on the system_highpri_wq.
>
> NOTE: this patch relies on the fact that the SPI framework attempts to
> push the messages out on the calling context (which is the one that is
> boosted to high priority). As I understand from earlier (long ago)
> discussions with Mark Brown this should be a fine assumption. Even if
> it isn't true sometimes this patch will still not make things worse.
>
> [1] https://crbug.com/678675
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Use flush_work(), not a completion (Brian)
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Use system_highpri_wq + completion (Matthias)
> - Avoid duplication by using a function pointer (Matthias)
>
> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_spi.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_spi.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_spi.c
> index ffc38f9d4829..29d2f7d24929 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_spi.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,27 @@ struct cros_ec_spi {
> unsigned int end_of_msg_delay;
> };
>
> +typedef int (*cros_ec_xfer_fn_t) (struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg);
> +
> +/**
> + * struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params - params for our high priority workers
> + *
> + * @work: The work_struct needed to queue work
> + * @fn: The function to use to transfer
> + * @ec_dev: ChromeOS EC device
> + * @ec_msg: Message to transfer
> + * @ret: The return value of the function
> + */
> +
> +struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params {
> + struct work_struct work;
> + cros_ec_xfer_fn_t fn;
> + struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev;
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg;
> + int ret;
> +};
> +
> static void debug_packet(struct device *dev, const char *name, u8 *ptr,
> int len)
> {
> @@ -350,13 +371,13 @@ static int cros_ec_spi_receive_response(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> }
>
> /**
> - * cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi - Transfer a packet over SPI and receive the reply
> + * do_cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi - Transfer a packet over SPI and receive the reply
> *
> * @ec_dev: ChromeOS EC device
> * @ec_msg: Message to transfer
> */
> -static int cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> - struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> +static int do_cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> {
> struct ec_host_response *response;
> struct cros_ec_spi *ec_spi = ec_dev->priv;
> @@ -493,13 +514,13 @@ static int cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> }
>
> /**
> - * cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi - Transfer a message over SPI and receive the reply
> + * do_cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi - Transfer a message over SPI and receive the reply
> *
> * @ec_dev: ChromeOS EC device
> * @ec_msg: Message to transfer
> */
> -static int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> - struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> +static int do_cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> {
> struct cros_ec_spi *ec_spi = ec_dev->priv;
> struct spi_transfer trans;
> @@ -611,6 +632,52 @@ static int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void cros_ec_xfer_high_pri_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params *params;
> +
> + params = container_of(work, struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params, work);
> + params->ret = params->fn(params->ec_dev, params->ec_msg);
> +}
> +
> +static int cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
nit: the fact that a high priority workqueue is used is an
implementation detail, since the driver has no function to perform a
transfer with 'normal'/low priority there is no need to distinguish
between the two cases. In this sense I'd be inclined to remove the
'high_pri' from the function names.
Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I focussed on other
details, anyway it's just a nit.
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg,
> + cros_ec_xfer_fn_t fn)
> +{
> + struct cros_ec_xfer_work_params params;
> +
> + INIT_WORK(¶ms.work, cros_ec_xfer_high_pri_work);
> + params.ec_dev = ec_dev;
> + params.ec_msg = ec_msg;
> + params.fn = fn;
> +
> + /*
> + * This looks a bit ridiculous. Why do the work on a
> + * different thread if we're just going to block waiting for
> + * the thread to finish? The key here is that the thread is
> + * running at high priority but the calling context might not
> + * be. We need to be at high priority to avoid getting
> + * context switched out for too long and the EC giving up on
> + * the transfer.
> + */
> + queue_work(system_highpri_wq, ¶ms.work);
> + flush_work(¶ms.work);
> +
> + return params.ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> +{
> + return cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(ec_dev, ec_msg, do_cros_ec_pkt_xfer_spi);
> +}
> +
> +static int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> +{
> + return cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(ec_dev, ec_msg, do_cros_ec_cmd_xfer_spi);
> +}
> +
> static void cros_ec_spi_dt_probe(struct cros_ec_spi *ec_spi, struct device *dev)
> {
> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists