Message-ID: <20200603181743.GC23722@bogus>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 19:17:43 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: mailbox: add doorbell support to ARM MHU

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 07:04:35PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:37:58AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 28-05-20, 13:20, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > Whether Linux
> > > requires serializing mailbox accesses is a separate issue. On that side,
> > > it seems silly to not allow driving the h/w in the most efficient way
> > > possible.
> >
> > That's exactly what we are trying to say. The hardware allows us to
> > write all 32 bits in parallel, without any hardware issues, why
> > shouldn't we do that ? The delay (which Sudeep will find out, he is
> > facing issues with hardware access because of lockdown right now)
> 
> OK, I was able to access the setup today. I couldn't reach a point
> where I can do measurements as the system just became unusable with
> one physical channel instead of 2 virtual channels as in my patches.
> 
> My test was simple. Switch to schedutil and read sensors periodically
> via sysfs.
> 
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected!
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120)
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120)
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected!
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: scmi_sensor_reading_get+0xf4/0x120)
>  arm-scmi firmware:scmi: message for 1 is not expected!
> 
> With trace enabled I can see even cpufreq_set timing out. Sample trace
> output:
> 
>        bash-1019  [005]  1149.452340: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1537 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=0 poll=1
>        bash-1019  [005]  1149.452407: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1537 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=0 status=0
>        bash-1526  [000]  1149.472553: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1538 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.472733: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1539 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.472842: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1539 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.483040: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1540 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.483043: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1540 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>     rs:main-543   [003]  1149.493031: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1541 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>     rs:main-543   [003]  1149.493047: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1541 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>      <idle>-0     [000]  1149.507033: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1542 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [000]  1149.507044: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1542 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>        bash-1526  [000]  1149.516068: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1538 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 status=-110
>        bash-1526  [000]  1149.516559: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1543 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.516729: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1544 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.516837: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1544 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110
> ksoftirqd/0-9     [000]  1149.519065: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1545 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
> ksoftirqd/0-9     [000]  1149.519072: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1545 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.526878: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1546 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.526882: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1546 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>      <idle>-0     [000]  1149.551119: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1547 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [000]  1149.551138: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1547 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=0
>        bash-1526  [000]  1149.560191: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1543 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 status=-110
>        bash-1526  [000]  1149.560690: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1548 msg_id=6 protocol_id=21 seq=0 poll=0
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.560859: scmi_xfer_begin:      transfer_id=1549 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 poll=1
>      <idle>-0     [001]  1149.560968: scmi_xfer_end:        transfer_id=1549 msg_id=7 protocol_id=19 seq=1 status=-110
> 
> protocol_id=19 is cpufreq and 21 is sensor. This is simplest test and
> I can easily generate more timeouts starting some stress test with DVFS.
> 

I just realised that we have the timing info in the traces and you will
observe the sensor readings take something in order of 100us to 500-600us
or even more based on which sensor is being read. While we have 100us
timeout for cpufreq opp set. I am attaching full trace now.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

View attachment "log" of type "text/plain" (72013 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists