On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:20:35 -0400 William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 02:14:43PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:34:42 -0400 > > William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:22:39AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 04:46:57PM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > > > >> On 9/22/19 6:35 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:03:05AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > >> >> Add support for Intel PSE Quadrature Encoder > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> >> --- > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Changes since v1: > > > > >> >> - Many more private sysfs files converted over to counter interface > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> How do you want me to model this device's Capture Compare Mode (see > > > > >> >> below)? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Felipe, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I'm CCing Fabien and David as they may be interested in the timestamps > > > > >> > discussion. See below for some ideas I have on implementing this. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Could be an interesting read (thread from my first counter driver): > > > > >> > > > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/1b913919-beb9-34e7-d915-6bcc40eeee1d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > >> > > > > >> What would be useful to me is something like the buffer feature in iio > > > > >> where a timestamp is associated with a count and stored in a buffer so that > > > > >> we can look at a window of all values recorded in the last 20ms. Being able > > > > >> to access this via mmap would be very helpful for performance (running on > > > > >> 300MHz ARM). Anything to do with timestamps in sysfs is probably not useful > > > > >> unless it is a rare event, like a watchdog timeout. > > > > > > > > > > I'm CCing Jonathan Cameron since I'm not familiar with how IIO handles > > > > > timestamps and buffers. I don't want to reinvent something that is > > > > > working well, so hopefully we can reuse the IIO timestamp design for the > > > > > Counter subsystem. > > > > Simple approach, push them both into a kfifo. Userspace then reads this > > (with poll/select/blocking read + things like watermarks all available). > > The description of what is there in each record is handled via sysfs as > > the IIO model is that the format of each record only changes with userspace > > intervention. > > > > The complexities mostly come from allowing the hardware side of what is there > > and the software side to differ, but this is only really needed if you want > > to have multiple readers and need to split up the data so each thinks it has > > the device to itself. I would guess not needed for counter usecases, but who > > knows down the line. > > Is the kfifo updating only when a user interacts with the timestamp > sysfs attributes? If so, why store the timestamps in a kfifo instead of > serving them directly on demand; or is the kfifo there to allow multiple > users to access the same timestamp fifo? I'm confused here. We have to update 'what' is stored in the kfifo when a change is made to what userspace wants us to store there. The kfifo is because userspace doesn't want to have to constantly read data to avoid loosing it. A count + timestamp is grabbed based either on the something from the hardware, or another in kernel source of "grab data now". The kernel pushes that into the kfifo. Userspace then reads out when it is ready. Multiple users would require multiple kfifos. Which is what evdev does IIRC. The logic to fill those multiple kfifos gets complex if different users have asked for different things to be stored. Eg. one wants timestamps and position, the other just the timestamps (odd case, but seems people do want to do that!). Then you have to split the data up appropriately before pushing it to the buffers. > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that a human-readable timestamps printout is useful for > > > > > certain applications (e.g. a tally counter attached to a fault line: a > > > > > human administrator will be able to review previous fault times). > > > > > However as you point out, a low latency operation is necessary for > > > > > performance critical applications. > > > > For this sort of case you could use a sysfs file that just returns the oldest > > entry when read. A seek back to the start and reread or a reopen of the file > > can then give you the next one and an appropriate error return indicates none > > left. > > The downside to this interface is that it's volatile, in the sense that > once the fifo is read you can't reread it unless you saved those > timestamps yourself. However, as you've pointed out in another email, > sysfs has a "single value" rule so returning the latest timestamp is > likely the best solution given the restriction that multiple values > cannot be returned via a single attribute. Even a sysfs interface would need to be effectively volatile. Might require an explicit 'clear' signal, but those are racy to deal with. If not volatile it would rapidly become very large. > > > > > > > > > > > Although you are correct that mmap is a good low latency operation to > > > > > get access to a timestamp buffer, I'm afraid giving direct access to > > > > > memory like that will lead to many incompatible representations of > > > > > timestamp data (e.g. variations in endianness, signedness, data size, > > > > > etc.). I would like a standardized representation for this data that > > > > > userspace applications can expect to receive and interpret, especially > > > > > when time is widely represented as an unsigned integer. > > > > It is moderately hard to get that sort of interface right, but it can be done. > > IIO does it for DMA type buffers, but not for anything where a software > > fifo is involved. You would need to guarantee a fixed format etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Felipe suggested the creation of a counter_event structure so that users > > > > > can poll on an attribute. This kind of behavior is useful for notifying > > > > > users of interrupts and other events, but I think we should restrict the > > > > > use of the read call on these sysfs attributes to just human-readable > > > > > data. Instead, perhaps ioctl calls can be used to facilitate binary data > > > > > transfers. > > > > > > > > > > For example, we can define a COUNTER_GET_TIMESTAMPS_IOCTL ioctl request > > > > > that returns a counter_timestamps structure with a timestamps array > > > > > populated: > > > > > > > > > > struct counter_timestamps{ > > > > > size_t num_timestamps; > > > > > unsigned int *timestamps; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > That would allow quick access to the timestamps data, while also > > > > > restricting it to a standard representation that all userspace > > > > > applications can follow and interpret. In addition, this won't interfer > > > > > with polling, so users can still wait for an interrupt and then decide > > > > > whether they want to use the slower human-readable printout (via read) > > > > > or the faster binary data access (via ioctl). > > > > > > > > Seems like we're starting to build the need for a /dev/counter[0123...] > > > > representation of the subsystem. If that's the case, then it may very > > > > well be that sysfs becomes somewhat optional. > > > > Agreed. Don't map this stuff onto sysfs where a chardev is more sensible. > > > > > > > > > > I think is makes sense to rely more on character devices specially since > > > > I know of devices running linux with so little memory that sysfs (and a > > > > bunch of other features) are removed from the kernel. Having a character > > > > device representation would allow counter subsystem to be used on such > > > > devices. > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > -- > > > > balbi > > > > > > A character device node for a counter might be a good idea. If a > > > performance critical application can't depend on parsing a sysfs > > > printout for timestamps, then it probably doesn't want to do so for the > > > other attributes either. I think you are right that certain systems > > > would have sysfs disabled for that very reason. > > > > > > > I am a little curious to whether people often run sysfs free any more? > > I know it used to happen a fair bit, but a lot of the kernel is now rather > > dependent on it. > > > > Of course you can add IOCTLs to do all the configuration of a device, but > > you can end up with a nasty and inflexible interface + add a burden > > on simple users of them having to use a library to unwind it all rather > > than simply poking text files. > > > > > I think latency concerns are the same reason the GPIO subsystem started > > > providing character device nodes as well. > > > > That was part of it, but a big element was also to provide the ability > > to set+get multiple lines in parallel. Kind of the same as you have > > here with a timestamp matching to a count. For low latency gpio on an > > SoC people often just directly write the registers from a userspace > > mapping. > > > > > We can do similar with the > > > Counter subsystem: provide character device nodes by default, and > > > optionally provide the human-readable sysfs interface as well. This > > > would allow applications with latency concerns to use a standard > > > interface for the Counter subsystem, while optionally providing a > > > simpler sysfs interface for other users. > > > > I wouldn't necessarily go for making the sysfs interface optional. > > It is extremely convenient for describing complex devices. It is > > possible to do all that via complex IOCTL query interfaces (see > > the mediabus framework for example), but it's much heavier weight. > > > > The IIO approach was to use the chardev for fast path and sysfs > > for slow. Maybe we'd do it differently if starting now, but I'm > > not sure we would end up different in this aspect. Other things > > would change though ;) > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > William Breathitt Gray > > I agree about the utility and convenience of sysfs; it's an interface > that is simple enough for a human to understand and provides information > in a universally parsable format: text. We can leave the sysfs interface > available by default since disabling it can be left to the power users > that have a need to do so (and flipping a Kconfig option shouldn't be > that difficult to accomplish). > > Regardless, I do see the benefits of providing a chardev interface -- > not just for timestamps evaluation but in other counter applications as > well, such as two-dimensional positioning tables where multiple counter > values would need to be read at relatively the same time (a situation > where multiple sysfs reads would impede precision). Thats one of the main reasons we have this in IIO as well. > > My concern with this is similar: a growing list of IOCTLs that are added > with new drivers trying to expose their device-specific extensions. I > think exposing every single extension with a respective dedicated IOCTL > is not the way to go; this would quickly lead to an unmaintainable list > of IOCTLs that most users would never need Yes. If you are going to do that, it needs to be very carefully controlled. Assumption is that a new driver almost never adds a new IOCTL. > > A more maintainable approach is to dedicate specialized IOCTLs only for > those features that are used by multiple counter drivers (i.e. listed in > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter); this will help curb > feature creep. The other driver-specific extensions can be accessed via > a few IOCTLs made for such interaction: perhaps one to poll for a list > of available extensions and another to read/write. > > The only change required to the Counter driver API is to allow for a > more opaque extension structure. This will allow us to supply dedicated > extension callbacks to handle binary data rather than text (though in an > opaque way such as the existing counter_count_direction enum); however, > driver-specific extensions can still be handled by text for simplicity. I'd push back as much as possible on any opaque structures. They don't work for generic userspace. This isn't an area where things are normally complex enough that we need a userspace driver component for most devices. > > The main change would be in the drivers/counter/counter.c file. This can > be split into three file: counter-core, counter-sysfs, counter-chardev. > The counter-core file would provide the core Counter functionality and > handle the driver API; the counter-sysfs and counter-chardev files can > expose the Counter subsystem to userspace in their respective formats. That would be easy enough. The chardev control interface will need a lot of careful thought though. It is very easy to end up with something inconsistent or impossible to extend. Good luck ;) Jonathan > > William Breathitt Gray
