Hi Vinod,
On 1/12/21 12:16 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 14-12-20, 10:13, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> The UDMA and BCDMA can provide higher throughput if the burst_size of the
>> channel is changed from it's default (which is 64 bytes) for Ultra-high
>> and high capacity channels.
>>
>> This performance benefit is even more visible when the buffers are aligned
>> with the burst_size configuration.
>>
>> The am654 does not have a way to change the burst size, but it is using
>> 64 bytes burst, so increasing the copy_align from 8 bytes to 64 (and
>> clients taking that into account) can increase the throughput as well.
>>
>> Numbers gathered on j721e:
>> echo 8000000 > /sys/module/dmatest/parameters/test_buf_size
>> echo 2000 > /sys/module/dmatest/parameters/timeout
>> echo 50 > /sys/module/dmatest/parameters/iterations
>> echo 1 > /sys/module/dmatest/parameters/max_channels
>>
>> Prior this patch: ~1.3 GB/s
>> After this patch: ~1.8 GB/s
>> with 1 byte alignment: ~1.7 GB/s
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c b/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> index 87157cbae1b8..54e4ccb1b37e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> @@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ struct udma_oes_offsets {
>> #define UDMA_FLAG_PDMA_ACC32 BIT(0)
>> #define UDMA_FLAG_PDMA_BURST BIT(1)
>> #define UDMA_FLAG_TDTYPE BIT(2)
>> +#define UDMA_FLAG_BURST_SIZE BIT(3)
>> +#define UDMA_FLAGS_J7_CLASS (UDMA_FLAG_PDMA_ACC32 | \
>> + UDMA_FLAG_PDMA_BURST | \
>> + UDMA_FLAG_TDTYPE | \
>> + UDMA_FLAG_BURST_SIZE)
>>
>> struct udma_match_data {
>> enum k3_dma_type type;
>> @@ -128,6 +133,7 @@ struct udma_match_data {
>> bool enable_memcpy_support;
>> u32 flags;
>> u32 statictr_z_mask;
>> + u8 burst_size[3];
>> };
>>
>> struct udma_soc_data {
>> @@ -436,6 +442,18 @@ static void k3_configure_chan_coherency(struct dma_chan *chan, u32 asel)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static u8 udma_get_chan_tpl_index(struct udma_tpl *tpl_map, int chan_id)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < tpl_map->levels; i++) {
>> + if (chan_id >= tpl_map->start_idx[i])
>> + return i;
>> + }
>
> Braces seem not required
True, they are not strictly needed but I prefer to have them when I have
any condition in the loop.
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void udma_reset_uchan(struct udma_chan *uc)
>> {
>> memset(&uc->config, 0, sizeof(uc->config));
>> @@ -1811,6 +1829,7 @@ static int udma_tisci_m2m_channel_config(struct udma_chan *uc)
>> const struct ti_sci_rm_udmap_ops *tisci_ops = tisci_rm->tisci_udmap_ops;
>> struct udma_tchan *tchan = uc->tchan;
>> struct udma_rchan *rchan = uc->rchan;
>> + u8 burst_size = 0;
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> /* Non synchronized - mem to mem type of transfer */
>> @@ -1818,6 +1837,12 @@ static int udma_tisci_m2m_channel_config(struct udma_chan *uc)
>> struct ti_sci_msg_rm_udmap_tx_ch_cfg req_tx = { 0 };
>> struct ti_sci_msg_rm_udmap_rx_ch_cfg req_rx = { 0 };
>>
>> + if (ud->match_data->flags & UDMA_FLAG_BURST_SIZE) {
>> + u8 tpl = udma_get_chan_tpl_index(&ud->tchan_tpl, tchan->id);
>
> Can we define variable at function start please
The 'tpl' is only used within this if branch, it looks a bit cleaner
imho, but if you insist, I can move the definition.
...
>> +static enum dmaengine_alignment udma_get_copy_align(struct udma_dev *ud)
>> +{
>> + const struct udma_match_data *match_data = ud->match_data;
>> + u8 tpl;
>> +
>> + if (!match_data->enable_memcpy_support)
>> + return DMAENGINE_ALIGN_8_BYTES;
>> +
>> + /* Get the highest TPL level the device supports for memcpy */
>> + if (ud->bchan_cnt) {
>> + tpl = udma_get_chan_tpl_index(&ud->bchan_tpl, 0);
>> + } else if (ud->tchan_cnt) {
>> + tpl = udma_get_chan_tpl_index(&ud->tchan_tpl, 0);
>> + } else {
>> + return DMAENGINE_ALIGN_8_BYTES;
>> + }
>
> Braces seem not required
Very true.
>
>> +
>> + switch (match_data->burst_size[tpl]) {
>> + case TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_BURST_SIZE_256_BYTES:
>> + return DMAENGINE_ALIGN_256_BYTES;
>> + case TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_BURST_SIZE_128_BYTES:
>> + return DMAENGINE_ALIGN_128_BYTES;
>> + case TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_BURST_SIZE_64_BYTES:
>> + fallthrough;
>> + default:
>> + return DMAENGINE_ALIGN_64_BYTES;
>
> ah, we are supposed to have case at same indent as switch, pls run
> checkpatch to have these flagged off
Yes, they should be.
The other me did a sloppy job for sure, this should have been screaming
even without checkpatch...
This has been done in a rush during the last days to close on the
backlog item which got the most votes.
--
Péter
