On 11/19/2012 03:32 PM, Per Förlin wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 10:48 AM, Konstantin Dorfman wrote:
>> Hello Per,
>>
>> Thank you for giving me an example, below I'm trying to explain some
>> logic issues of it and asking you some questions about your vision of
>> the patch.
>>
>> On 11/15/2012 06:38 PM, Per Förlin wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2012 04:15 PM, Konstantin Dorfman wrote:
>>>> Hello Per,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Konstantin Dorfman
>>>>> <kdorfman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/29/2012 11:40 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to move the focus of my concerns from root cause analysis
>>>>>>> to the actual patch,
>>>>>>> My first reflection is that the patch is relatively complex and some
>>>>>>> of the code looks duplicated.
>>>>>>> Would it be possible to simplify it and re-use the current execution flow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the following flow feasible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in mmc_start_req():
>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>> if (rqc == NULL && not_resend)
>>>>>>> wait_for_both_mmc_and_arrival_of_new_req
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> wait_only_for_mmc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (arrival_of_new_req) {
>>>>>>> set flag to indicate fetch-new_req
>>>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in queue.c:
>>>>>>> if (fetch-new_req)
>>>>>>> don't overwrite previous req.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>> Per
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are talking about using both waiting mechanisms, old (wait on
>>>>>> completion) and new - wait_event_interruptible()? But how done()
>>>>>> callback, called on host controller irq context, will differentiate
>>>>>> which one is relevant for the request?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is better to use single wait point for mmc thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sketch a patch to better explain my point. It's not tested it
>>>>> barely compiles :)
>>>>> The patch tries to introduce your feature and still keep the same code
>>>>> path. And it exposes an API that could be used by SDIO as well.
>>>>> The intention of my sketch patch is only to explain what I tried to
>>>>> visualize in the pseudo code previously in this thread.
>>>>> The out come of your final patch should be documented here I think:
>>>>> Documentation/mmc/mmc-async-req.txt
>>>> This document is ready, attaching it to this mail and will be included
>>>> in next version of the patch (or RESEND).
>>>>>
>>>>> Here follows my patch sketch:
>>>>> ........................................................
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
>>>>> index e360a97..08036a1 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
>>>>> @@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ static int mmc_queue_thread(void *d)
>>>>> spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (req || mq->mqrq_prev->req) {
>>>>> + if (!req)
>>>>> + mmc_prefetch_start(&mq->mqrq_prev->mmc_active, true);
>>>>> set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>>>> mq->issue_fn(mq, req);
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> @@ -79,11 +81,13 @@ static int mmc_queue_thread(void *d)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Current request becomes previous request and vice versa. */
>>>>> - mq->mqrq_prev->brq.mrq.data = NULL;
>>>>> - mq->mqrq_prev->req = NULL;
>>>>> - tmp = mq->mqrq_prev;
>>>>> - mq->mqrq_prev = mq->mqrq_cur;
>>>>> - mq->mqrq_cur = tmp;
>>>>> + if (!mmc_prefetch_pending(&mq->mqrq_prev->mmc_active)) {
>>>>> + mq->mqrq_prev->brq.mrq.data = NULL;
>>>>> + mq->mqrq_prev->req = NULL;
>>>>> + tmp = mq->mqrq_prev;
>>>>> + mq->mqrq_prev = mq->mqrq_cur;
>>>>> + mq->mqrq_cur = tmp;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> } while (1);
>>>>> up(&mq->thread_sem);
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -109,10 +113,44 @@ static void mmc_request_fn(struct request_queue *q)
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (mq->prefetch_enable) {
>>>>> + spin_lock(&mq->prefetch_lock);
>>>>> + if (mq->prefetch_completion)
>>>>> + complete(mq->prefetch_completion);
>> Since mq->prefetch_completion init happens only in core.c after
>> mmc_start_req(NULL), we can miss all new request notifications coming
>> from fetching NULL request until then.
> It's a mistake in the patch.
> I meant check mq->prefetch_pending to know whether we need to wait in the first place.
> That's why mq->prefetch_pending is assigned even if mq->prefetch_completion is not set yet.
> Patch needs to be updated to take it into account. One could let mmc_prefecth_init() return and indicate if there is already a NEW_REQ pending. If this is the case skip wait.
>
>
>>>>> + mq->prefetch_pending = true;
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&mq->prefetch_lock);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> if (!mq->mqrq_cur->req && !mq->mqrq_prev->req)
>>>>> wake_up_process(mq->thread);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void mmc_req_init(struct mmc_async_req *areq, struct completion *compl)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mmc_queue *mq =
>>>>> + container_of(areq->prefetch, struct mmc_queue, prefetch);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock(&mq->prefetch_lock);
>>>>> + mq->prefetch_completion = compl;
>>>>> + if (mq->prefetch_pending)
>>>>> + complete(mq->prefetch_completion);
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&mq->prefetch_lock);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void mmc_req_start(struct mmc_async_req *areq, bool enable)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mmc_queue *mq =
>>>>> + container_of(areq->prefetch, struct mmc_queue, prefetch);
>>>>> + mq->prefetch_enable = enable;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool mmc_req_pending(struct mmc_async_req *areq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mmc_queue *mq =
>>>>> + container_of(areq->prefetch, struct mmc_queue, prefetch);
>>>>> + return mq->prefetch_pending;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static struct scatterlist *mmc_alloc_sg(int sg_len, int *err)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct scatterlist *sg;
>>>>> @@ -166,6 +204,12 @@ int mmc_init_queue(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
>>>>> mmc_card *card,
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq_cur = &mq->mqrq[0];
>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq_prev = &mq->mqrq[1];
>>>>> + spin_lock_init(&mq->prefetch_lock);
>>>>> + mq->prefetch.wait_req_init = mmc_req_init;
>>>>> + mq->prefetch.wait_req_start = mmc_req_start;
>>>>> + mq->prefetch.wait_req_pending = mmc_req_pending;
>>>>> + mqrq_cur->mmc_active.prefetch = &mq->prefetch;
>>>>> + mqrq_prev->mmc_active.prefetch = &mq->prefetch;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (mmc_dev(host)->dma_mask && *mmc_dev(host)->dma_mask)
>>>>> limit = *mmc_dev(host)->dma_mask;
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.h b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.h
>>>>> index d2a1eb4..5afd467 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.h
>>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ struct mmc_queue {
>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req mqrq[2];
>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq_cur;
>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq_prev;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + struct mmc_async_prefetch prefetch;
>>>>> + spinlock_t prefetch_lock;
>>>>> + struct completion *prefetch_completion;
>>>>> + bool prefetch_enable;
>>>>> + bool prefetch_pending;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> extern int mmc_init_queue(struct mmc_queue *, struct mmc_card *, spinlock_t *,
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>> index 9503cab..06fc036 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>> @@ -352,7 +352,15 @@ struct mmc_async_req *mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host *host,
>>>>> mmc_pre_req(host, areq->mrq, !host->areq);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (host->areq) {
>>>>> + if (!areq)
>>>>> + mmc_prefetch_init(host->areq,
>>>>> + &host->areq->mrq->completion);
>>>>> mmc_wait_for_req_done(host, host->areq->mrq);
>>>>> + if (!areq) {
>>>>> + mmc_prefetch_start(host->areq, false);
>>>>> + if (mmc_prefetch_pending(host->areq))
>>>>> + return NULL;
>> In this case, mmc thread may be unblocked because done() arrived for
>> current request and not because new request notification. In such a case
>> we would like the done request to be handled before fetching the new
>> request.
> I agree. We wake up and there is no pending new request execution should proceed normally by handling the completed request.
>
>> In my code is_done_rcv flag used along with is_new_req flag in
>> order to differentiate the reason for mmc thread awake.
> In my patch the return value of "mmc_prefetch_pending()" specifies if thee is a pending request.what should happen.
> If both current request is done and mmc_prefetch_pending is done at the same time I see there is a problem with my patch. There needs to be a flag to indicate if current request is done.
>
>>
>>>>> + }
>>>>> err = host->areq->err_check(host->card, host->areq);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>> index 65c64ee..ce5d03f 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/device.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/fault-inject.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/completion.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <linux/mmc/core.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/mmc/pm.h>
>>>>> @@ -140,6 +141,13 @@ struct mmc_host_ops {
>>>>>
>>>>> struct mmc_card;
>>>>> struct device;
>>>>> +struct mmc_async_req;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct mmc_async_prefetch {
>>>>> + void (*wait_req_init)(struct mmc_async_req *, struct completion *);
>>>>> + void (*wait_req_start)(struct mmc_async_req *, bool);
>>>>> + bool (*wait_req_pending)(struct mmc_async_req *);
>>>>> +};
>>>>>
>>>>> struct mmc_async_req {
>>>>> /* active mmc request */
>>>>> @@ -149,8 +157,33 @@ struct mmc_async_req {
>>>>> * Returns 0 if success otherwise non zero.
>>>>> */
>>>>> int (*err_check) (struct mmc_card *, struct mmc_async_req *);
>>>>> + struct mmc_async_prefetch *prefetch;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* set completion variable, complete == NULL to reset completion */
>>>>> +static inline void mmc_prefetch_init(struct mmc_async_req *areq,
>>>>> + struct completion *complete)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (areq->prefetch && areq->prefetch->wait_req_init)
>>>>> + areq->prefetch->wait_req_init(areq, complete);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* enable or disable prefetch feature */
>>>>> +static inline void mmc_prefetch_start(struct mmc_async_req *areq, bool enable)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (areq->prefetch && areq->prefetch->wait_req_start)
>>>>> + areq->prefetch->wait_req_start(areq, enable);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* return true if new request is pending otherwise false */
>>>>> +static inline bool mmc_prefetch_pending(struct mmc_async_req *areq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (areq->prefetch && areq->prefetch->wait_req_pending)
>>>>> + return areq->prefetch->wait_req_pending(areq);
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * struct mmc_slot - MMC slot functions
>>>>> *
>>>>> ....................................................................
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Per
>>>> I understand your motivation and idea for re-structure the patch. It is
>>>> still not clear for me how exactly mmc thread will be awaken on new
>>>> request notification in your version, but I have another problem:
>>>>
>>> mmc_request_fn() is called and it calls complete(mq->prefetch_completion) which wakes up the current thread.
>>> My patch is just an example. The intention is to make the patch cleaner. But I may have missed some of the HPI aspects.
>>
>> Is it the lack of functions wrappers that you are using in your example?
> It's fine to skip the functions wrappers if it makes no sense.
> What I want to avoid is to create new functions for data_req_start and data_req_wait.
> I would rather add this to the existing functions in core.c and keep changes in block.c and the flow minimal.
>
>> As I understand your example, you mean to implement generic logic on
>> core/core.c level by using wrapper functions and leave final
>> implementation for MMC to card/queue.c and for SDIO layer to
>> card/..sdio.. (I'm not too familiar with sdio protocol implementation).
>> Well, it is make a lot of sense.
>>
> I still have "plans" to add pre/post/async support in the SDIO framework too but I have not got to it.
> I would be nice to add your NEW_REQ feature along with the other mmc-async features, to make it usable from SDIO.
>
>
>> But the devil is in details - there is a lot of work in
>> mmc_wait_for_data_req_done(), done() callback and also error handling
>> changes for card/block.c
> Things in core.c could be re-used in the SDIO case. In block.c there are only FS specific implementation not relevant for SDIO.
>
>>
>> Do you think, that wait_event() API used not suits the same semantic as
>> completion API?
> The waiting mechanims may be wait_event or completion.
> I'm not in favor of using both. Better to replace completion with wait_event if you prefer.
>
I'm fine with wait_event() (block request transfers) combined with completion (for other transfer), as long as the core.c API is intact. I don't see a reason for a new start_data_req()
mmc_start_req() is only used by the mmc block transfers.
Making a test case in mmc_test.c is a good way to stress test the feature (e.g. random timing of incoming new requests) and it will show how the API works too.
BR
Per
> My main concern is to avoid adding new API to core.c in order to add the NEW_REQ feature. My patch is an example of changes to be done in core.c without adding new functions.
>
>>
>> We would like to have a generic capability to handle additional events,
>> such as HPI/stop flow, in addition to the NEW_REQUEST notification.
>> Therefore, an event mechanism seems to be a better design than completion.
>>
>> I've looked at SDIO code and from what I can understand, right now SDIO
>> is not using async request mechanism and works from 'wait_for_cmd()`
>> level. This means that such work as exposing MMC core API's is major
>> change and definitely should be separate design and implementation
>> effort, while my current patch right now will fix mmc thread behavior
>> and give better performance for upper layers.
> You are right. There is no support in the SDIO implementation for pre/post/async feature. Still I had it in mind design the "struct mmc_async". It's possible to re-use the mmc core parts in order to utilize this support in the SDIO case. I'm not saying we should design for SDIO but at least keep the API in a way that it's potential usable from SDIO too. The API of core.c (start/wait of requests) should make sense without the existence of MMC block driver (block/queue).
>
> One way to test the design is to add a test in mmc_test.c for penging NEW_REQ. In mmc_test.c there is not block.c or queue.c.
> If the test case if simple to write in mmc_test.c it's means that the API is on a good level.
>
>
> BR
> Per
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If the API is not implemented the mmc core shall simply ignore it.
>>>
>>>> We want to expand this event based mechanism (unblock mmc thread from
>>>> waiting for the running request) by adding another reason/event. This is
>>>> URGENT_REQUEST event. When block layer has Urgent request to execute, it
>>>> notifies mmc layer (similar to mmc_request() notification) and mmc layer
>>>> handles this urgent request notification by correctly stopping running
>>>> request, re-inserting back to I/O scheduler all not yet performed parts
>>>> and fetching & starting the urgent request.
>>>> The reasoning and general idea are documented together with "New event"
>>>> and will be submitted soon. The patch itself will be submitted in a week
>>>> or so.
>>> I have not consider use of HPI in my proposal. If the NEW_REQ is first in line in the mmc queue it will be fetched as the NEW_REQ.
>>> Then the current request must be interrupted and returned to mmc-queue or io-scheduler.
>>>
>>> I don't see a direct contradiction between the two designs.
>>>
>>> The main point is to make the NEW_REQ API more simple clear.
>>> My example is just an example.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for our discussion - to handle both events mmc layer should be
>>>> capable to be awaken not only in case of no mmc_prefetch_pending() (in
>>>> your patch terms), but also when we have perfect case of async requests:
>>>> one running on the bus and second prepared and waiting for the first.
>>>>
>>>> I think, that in case SDIO protocol driver need such functionality as
>>>> NEW_REQUEST, one need to implement notification to the mmc layer similar
>>>> to mmc_request() code in my patch.
>>> SDIO needs to implement the new NEW_REQ API, but the API needs to be clean.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Per
>>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Konstantin Dorfman,
>> QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
>> Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
