Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:31:22 +0200
From:   Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, willy.mh.wolff.ml@...il.com,
        k.konieczny@...sung.com, cw00.choi@...sung.com, krzk@...nel.org,
        chanwoo@...nel.org, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
        kyungmin.park@...sung.com, s.nawrocki@...sung.com, kgene@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memory: samsung: exynos5422-dmc: Add module
 param to control IRQ mode


On 7/17/20 1:53 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/14/20 10:01 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi Bartek,
>>
>> On 7/14/20 8:42 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 7/10/20 9:11 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> The driver can operate in two modes relaying on devfreq monitoring
>>>> mechanism which periodically checks the device status or it can use
>>>> interrupts when they are provided by loaded Device Tree. The newly
>>>> introduced module parameter can be used to choose between devfreq
>>>> monitoring and internal interrupts without modifying the Device Tree.
>>>> It also sets devfreq monitoring as default when the parameter is not set
>>>> (also the case for default when the driver is not built as a module).
>>>
>>> Could you please explain why should we leave the IRQ mode
>>> support in the dmc driver?
>>
>> I am still experimenting with the IRQ mode in DMC, but have limited time
>> for it and no TRM.
>> The IRQ mode in memory controller or bus controller has one major
>> advantage: is more interactive. In polling we have fixed period, i.e.
>> 100ms - that's a lot when we have a sudden, latency sensitive workload.
>> There might be no check of the device load for i.e. 99ms, but the tasks
>> with such workload started running. That's a long period of a few frames
>> which are likely to be junked. Should we adjust polling interval to i.e.
>> 10ms, I don't think so. There is no easy way to address all of the
>> scenarios.
>>
>>>
>>> What are the advantages over the polling mode?
>>
>> As described above: more reactive to sudden workload, which might be
>> latency sensitive and cause junk frames.
>> Drawback: not best in benchmarks which are randomly jumping
>> over the data set, causing low traffic on memory.
>> It could be mitigated as Sylwester described with not only one type
>> of interrupt, but another, which could 'observe' also other information
>> type in the counters and fire.
>>
>>>
>>> In what scenarios it should be used?
>>
>> System like Android with GUI, when there is this sudden workload
>> quite often.
>>
>> I think the interconnect could help here and would adjust the DMC
>> freq upfront. Although I don't know if interconnect on Exynos5422 is in
>> your scope in near future. Of course the interconnect will not cover
>> all scenarios either.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> [ If this is only for documentation purposes then it should be
>>>    removed as it would stay in (easily accessible) git history
>>>    anyway.. ]
>>
>> The current interrupt mode is definitely not perfect and switching
>> to devfreq monitoring mode has more sense. On the other hand, it
>> still has potential, until there is no interconnect for this SoC.
>> I will continue experimenting with irq mode, so I would like to
>> still have the code in the driver.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lukasz
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> -- 
>>> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
>>> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
>>> Samsung Electronics
>>>
> 
> Bartek, do you have some objections to the patches or you think
> they can be taken via devfreq-next?

No objections from me, thank you for the IRQ mode explanation.

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

Powered by blists - more mailing lists