Hi Finn,
Am 01.02.2017 um 21:40 schrieb Finn Thain:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> Am 26.01.2017 um 21:47 schrieb Finn Thain:
>>
>>> This would imply CPU overhead that is half of that which mac_scsi
>>> incurs. That's the best case, but I see no reason to expect worse
>>> performance than PDMA gets.
>>
>> But how much more overhead would we have compared to using the SCSI
>> interrupt to signal DMA completion?
>>
>
> I imagine that contention for the CPU bus would be a problem if we polled
> the interrupt flag without any delay between iterations. With a small
> delay I think the overhead would be comparable with PDMA and therefore
> tolerable.
The first delay can even be quite long, estimated based on the transfer
size.
>> Since IDE does not use the ST-DMA and does not share any registers with
>> ST-DMA, peeking at the IDE status register in order to decide whether
>> the interrupt was raised by the IDE interface won't hurt the running DMA
>> process (regardless of whether FDC or SCSI started it). Nor will
>> servicing the IDE interrupt.
>>
>
> Maybe we can just call the IDE handler from the ST-DMA handler regardless
> of the status register. For a shared interrupt handler this should work
> okay. (BTW, where is the IDE status register found anyway?)
We could do that as well, true. Easier to implement on the quick.
>> If at the end of the IDE interrupt processing the interrupt status is
>> cleared in the IDE interface, the interrupt line should go high again
>> before the IDE inthandler returns.
>>
>
> On page 2 of the schematic, MFP pin I5 is wired to the output of the
> logical OR combination of the IDEIRQ and XDISKINT signals (actually
> active-low signals fed into an AND gate). The pin is edge-triggered.
>
> This is just like the wired-OR Nubus slot IRQs connected to the Mac's VIA
> pin. The handler must ack all asserted IRQs. Otherwise there will be no
> more edges and no more interrupts.
Quite right - that's why I mentioned monitoring the IRQ signal status in
the GPIO register.
> This means looping over the IDE, FDC/SCSI DMA handlers until they all
> return IRQ_NONE. (Or equivalently, looping over the IRQ flags in the
> device registers until they are all de-asserted.)
Looping over the handlers risks stopping the DMA without need (except
for IDE).
> BTW, this makes me think that the stdma.c mechanism is already flawed,
> since stdma_int() can cause only one of IDEIRQ and XDISKINT to become
> inactive, but not both. That's fine as long as no device raises IRQ until
> it's driver acquires the stdma lock -- but we know this is not true for
> the 5380 bus reset interrupt and it isn't true for IDE devices either
> (based on Geert's email in this thread).
The initial bus reset code had safeguards against raising an interrupt -
the IRQ was 'turned off' while the bus reset was executed. Maybe we need
something like that, at least in the case where SCSI does not hold the
ST-DMA lock.
>> If we can ensure that the FDC/SCSI interrupt handler runs after the IDE
>> handler, we can then make that handler check the interrupt line status
>> and bail out if there's nothing to be done. (For the sake of simplicity,
>> this check can be done in stdma_int() since we need to retain mutual
>> locking of the DMA interface by SCSI and FDC anyway.)
>>
>> We can ensure the IDE interrupt is called first by using a special
>> interrupt controller to register separate IDE and FDC/SCSI interrupts
>> with (I've done that to provide distinct interrupt numbers and handlers
>> for the timer D interrupt that's used to poll ethernet and USB interface
>> status on the ROM port).
>>
>> That way, we can ensure IDE interrupts do not step on the ST-DMA state,
>> and all that remains are premature SCSI interrupts terminating DMA
>> transfer (which we already face anyway).
>>
>> Am I missing a potential race here? Does IDE send the next request off
>> to the disk from inside the interrupt handler so we could see IDE
>> immediately raise the next interrupt? In that case, we'd also need to
>> check the IDE interrupt status in the interface status register, and
>> bail out for another pass through the IDE/FDC/SCSI handlers until IDE is
>> no longer posting an interrupt...
>>
>
> I don't know anything about IDE so I can't comment on this particular
> scenario (IDE interrupt handler causing IDE interrupt). The race condition
> may be only theoretical.
>
> What you seem to be aiming at is an algorithm to ensure that no DMA
> interrupt is handled whilst an IDE interrupt is pending. Taking into
Whilst the IDE interrupt is the only one pending, to be precise.
> account the logical OR issue, one could imagine a handler for the
> IRQ_MFP_FSCSI interrupt something like the following. (This code is
> probably useless for implementing your interrupt controller, but I hope it
> illustrates some of the issues.)
>
> do {
> handled = ata_handler(irq, ata_dev);
> if (handled == IRQ_NONE && atari_irq_pending(IRQ_MFP_FSCSI))
> handled |= stdma_int(irq, stdma_dev);
> } while (handled != IRQ_NONE);
Not quite - we can't be certain that there aren't actually two
interrupts pending (say IDE interrupts first, and while we service that
interrupt, SCSI interrupts next but since the IRQ signal remains low, we
don't trigger another interrupt). So we must run the loop for both IDE
and stdma_int for as long as the IRQ signal remains low.
I had missed the case where SCSI interrupts first and the IDE interrupt
only comes in while the SCSI inthandler is running - need to think a bit
more about this.
> Clearly this is not free from race conditions. The other problem is the
> use of atari_irq_pending(IRQ_MFP_FSCSI). It tells us when an edge appears
> but doesn't tell us about the present state of the IRQ output pins on the
> NCR5380 or the WD1772. We can't access the device registers so
> st_mfp.par_dt_reg & BIT(5) must be used instead of
> atari_irq_pending(IRQ_MFP_FSCSI);
I've written a function to that effect, and tested it in the current
Falcon inthandler (without sharing the interrupt truly yet).
> The simplest approach is to treat it like a shared interrupt, with a loop
> to account for the logical OR:
>
> do {
> handled = ata_handler(irq, ata_dev) |
> scsi_falcon_intr(irq, scsi_dev) |
> fdc_handler(irq, fdc_dev);
> } while (handled != IRQ_NONE);
We can never have both SCSI and FDC interrupt at the same time (both
register access and DMA setup are shared between the two). Best retain
stdma_lock() for these two.
> This should work fine with polled DMA (and might even allow the flawed
> stdma.c lock mechanism to be eliminated) but it can't work with your
> scheme because scsi_falcon_intr() assumes exclusive access to the IRQ;
> hence it must not be called unless there is an actual 5380 or DMA
> interrupt.
Correct - polled DMA might be easier to handle here.
> I don't know which scheme is better. Mine is simpler and probably free of
> race conditions but does burn some CPU time. Your scheme is more
> complicated.
Meaning likely to race...
I'll have to test this with IDE removed from the locking scheme, and
we'll hopefully see races pretty quick.
Got a few new ideas to try now, thanks!
Cheers,
Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
