Doug,
On 02/01/2016 06:09 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Kever,
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>>
>> On 01/29/2016 10:20 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>> In dwc2_hcd_qh_deactivate() we will put some things on the
>>> periodic_sched_ready list. These things won't be taken off the ready
>>> list until the next SOF, which might be a little late. Let's put them
>>> on right away.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
>>> Tested-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren at i2se.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v6:
>>> - Add Heiko's Tested-by.
>>> - Add Stefan's Tested-by.
>>>
>>> Changes in v5: None
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Schedule periodic right away if it's time new for v4.
>>>
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c b/drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c
>>> index 9b3c435339ee..3abb34a5fc5b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c
>>> @@ -1080,12 +1080,26 @@ void dwc2_hcd_qh_deactivate(struct dwc2_hsotg
>>> *hsotg, struct dwc2_qh *qh,
>>> * Note: we purposely use the frame_number from the "hsotg"
>>> structure
>>> * since we know SOF interrupt will handle future frames.
>>> */
>>> - if (dwc2_frame_num_le(qh->next_active_frame, hsotg->frame_number))
>>> + if (dwc2_frame_num_le(qh->next_active_frame, hsotg->frame_number))
>>> {
>>> + enum dwc2_transaction_type tr_type;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * We're bypassing the SOF handler which is normally what
>>> puts
>>> + * us on the ready list because we're in a hurry and need
>>> to
>>> + * try to catch up.
>>> + */
>>> + dwc2_sch_vdbg(hsotg, "QH=%p IMM ready fn=%04x,
>>> nxt=%04x\n",
>>> + qh, frame_number, qh->next_active_frame);
>>> list_move_tail(&qh->qh_list_entry,
>>> &hsotg->periodic_sched_ready);
>>> - else
>>> +
>>> + tr_type = dwc2_hcd_select_transactions(hsotg);
>> Do we need to add select_transactions call here? If we get into this
>> function in interrupt
>> and once we put the qh in ready queue, the qh can be handled in this frame
>> again by the
>> later function call of dwc_hcd_select_transactions, so what we need to to
>> here is put
>> it in ready list instead of inactive queue, and wait for the schedule.
> I'm not sure I understand. Can you restate?
>
>
> I'll try to explain more in the meantime...
>
> Both before and after my change, this function would place something
> on the ready queue if the next_active_frame <= the frame number as of
> last SOF interrupt (aka hsotg->frame_number). Otherwise it goes on
> the inactive queue. Assuming that the previous change ("usb: dwc2:
> host: Manage frame nums better in scheduler") worked properly then
> next_active_frame shouldn't be less than (hsotg->frame_number - 1).
> Remember that next_active_frame is always 1 before the wire frame, so
> if "next_active_frame == hsotg->frame_number - 1" it means that we
> need to get the transfer on the wire _right away_. If
> "next_active_frame == hsotg->frame_number" the transfer doesn't need
> to go on the wire right away, but since dwc2 can be prepped one frame
> in advance it doesn't hurt to give it to the hardware right away if
> there's space.
>
> As I understand it, if we stick something on the ready queue it won't
> generally get looked at until the next SOF interrupt. That means
> we'll be too late if "next_active_frame == hsotg->frame_number - 1"
> and we'll possibly be too late (depending on interrupt latency) if
> "next_active_frame == hsotg->frame_number"
>
I understand this patch and agree with your point of schedule the
periodic right away instead of at least next frame.
My point is, there are only two call to dwc2_hcd_qh_deactivate(), from
dwc2_hcd_urb_dequeue() and dwc2_release_channel(), we don't need
to do the schedule for dequeue, and there is one
dwc2_hcd_select_transactions() call at the end of dwc2_release_channel(),
maybe we don't need another dwc2_hcd_select_transactions() here.
I think the duration from this point to the function call of
dwc2_hcd_select_transactions()
in dwc2_release_channel() will be the main factor for us to decide if
we need to add a function call of dwc2_hcd_select_transactions() here.
Thanks,
- Kever
> Note that before my series, there were more places than just the SOF
> interrupt that would update hsotg->frame_number (see "usb: dwc2: host:
> Manage frame nums better in scheduler" for fix). Also before my
> series (specially "usb: dwc2: host: Manage frame nums better in
> scheduler") we used the actual current frame number when doing
> comparisons. Also before my series (specifically "usb: dwc2: host:
> Properly set even/odd frame") we didn't really place things in the
> frame that they were scheduled in anyway.
>
>
> Also note that I believe that when dwc2_hcd_qh_deactivate() is called
> our spinlock is held which means that the SOF interrupt either ran
> before our function or won't run till after it.
>
>>> + if (tr_type != DWC2_TRANSACTION_NONE)
>>> + dwc2_hcd_queue_transactions(hsotg, tr_type);
>>> + } else {
>>> list_move_tail(&qh->qh_list_entry,
>>> &hsotg->periodic_sched_inactive);
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> /**
>>
>>
