linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] firmware: arm_scmi: smc transport supports multi-message pool

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAN5uoS_35=HcFSmeG=L0S6Q5XV5_bL-NoD4vgW_NdckJDytcwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:12:20 +0200
From:   Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Souvik Chakravarty <Souvik.Chakravarty@....com>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] firmware: arm_scmi: smc transport supports
 multi-message pool

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 10:57, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 23:11, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:37:21PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote:
> > > > > There is no reason for the smc transport to restrict itself to a 1
> > > > > message pool. More can be allocated, messages are copied from/to the
> > > > > shared memory only on SMC exit/entry hence SCMI driver can play with
> > > > > several messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use value of 20 to mimic mailbox transport implementation.
> > > >
> > > > What is the need to mimic ?
> > >
> > > I had to pick a value. I can't say whether 2, 5 or 20 is better.
> > > I looks how the mailbox transport did and used the same value
> > > as it seemed reasonable regarding its memory cost.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Any high value could fit. This should be something configurable.
> > > >
> > > > Why not 10 or 100 ? I see any value other than 1 is useless as we lock
> > > > the channel in send_message and we don't maintain a queue like mailbox.
> > >
> > > I'll check again.
> > > Playing with SCMI voltage domain [1], it happens that I needed several
> > > preallocated message buffers unless what regulators fail to be probed.
> >
> >
> > I may be missing something but I can't see how, we simply block in
> > send_message while mailbox has a queue of 20 which is why it has 20 there.
> >
> > The issue you are seeing could be different. Let me know if I am missing
> > something.
> >
>
> OK, I gave this some thought and realise that in-order to allow multiple
> requests simultaneously, we do need this value > 1. I will take this
> and make some tweaks to the commit log to indicate the same.
>

Thanks for the feedback.
I planned to look back which value would really make sense.
Whatever, feel free to tweak or change this proposal.

Regards,
etienne

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep