On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:36:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 20:18 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:06:53PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 17:23 +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If the command is sync, wait for the firmware to
> > > > write
> > > > back,
> > > > + * if multi descriptors to be sent, use the first one to
> > > > check
> > > > + */
> > > > + if ((desc->flag) & HNS_ROCE_CMD_FLAG_NO_INTR) {
> > > > + do {
> > > > + if (hns_roce_cmq_csq_done(hr_dev))
> > > > + break;
> > > > + usleep_range(1000, 2000);
> > > > + timeout++;
> > > > + } while (timeout < priv->cmq.tx_timeout);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > then we spin here for a maximum amount of time between 200 and
> > > 400ms,
> > > so 1/4 to 1/2 a second. All the time we are holding the bh lock on
> > > this CPU. That seems excessive to me. If we are going to spin
> > > that
> > > long, can you find a way to allocate/reserve your resources, send
> > > the
> > > command, then drop the bh lock while you spin, and retake it before
> > > you
> > > complete once the spinning is done?
> >
> > They don't allocate anything in this loop, but checking the pointers
> > are
> > the same, see hns_roce_cmq_csq_done.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your intended implication of your comment. I
> wasn't concerned about them allocating anything, only that if the
> hardware is hung, then this loop will hang out for 1/4 to 1/2 a second
> and hold up all bottom half processing on this CPU in the meantime.
> That's the sort of things that provides poor overall system behavior.
>
> Now, since they are really only checking to see if the hardware has
> gotten around to their particular command, and their command is part of
> a ring structure, it's possible to record the original head command,
> and our new head command, and then release the spin_lock_bh around the
> entire do{ }while construct, and in hns_roce_cmd_csq_done() you could
> check that head is not in the range old_head:new_head. That would
> protect you in case something in the bottom half processing queued up
> some more commands and from one sleep to the next the head jumped from
> something other than the new_head to something past new_head, so that
> head == priv->cmq.csq.next_to_use ends up being perpetually false.
> But, that's just from a quick read of the code, I could easily be
> missing something here...
Thanks,
I got your point, the phrase "can you find a way to allocate/reserve
your resources," confused me back then.
>
> > >
> > > > +#define HNS_ROCE_CMQ_TX_TIMEOUT 200
> > >
> > > or you could reduce the size of this define...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> > > Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
> > > 2FDD
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
> > > rdma" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
