On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:38 AM Ilpo Järvinen
> <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > The current uart_fifo_timeout() returns jiffies, which is not always
> > > the most convenient for callers. Add a variant uart_fifo_timeout_ms()
> > > that returns the timeout in milliseconds.
> > >
> > > NOTES:
> > > - msecs_to_jiffies() rounds up, unlike nsecs_to_jiffies(). This is
> > > because msecs_to_jiffies() is actually intended for device drivers
> > > to calculate timeout value. This means we don't need to take the max
> > > of the timeout and "1" since the timeout will always be > 0 ms (we
> > > add 20 ms of slop).
> > > - uart_fifo_timeout_ms() returns "unsigned int" but we leave
> > > uart_fifo_timeout() returning "unsigned long". This matches the
> > > types of msecs_to_jiffies().
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - New
> > >
> > > include/linux/serial_core.h | 15 +++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/serial_core.h b/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > index 8cb65f50e830..97968acfd564 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > @@ -889,14 +889,21 @@ unsigned int uart_get_divisor(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int baud);
> > > /*
> > > * Calculates FIFO drain time.
> > > */
> > > -static inline unsigned long uart_fifo_timeout(struct uart_port *port)
> > > +static inline unsigned int uart_fifo_timeout_ms(struct uart_port *port)
> > > {
> > > u64 fifo_timeout = (u64)READ_ONCE(port->frame_time) * port->fifosize;
> > > + unsigned int fifo_timeout_ms = div_u64(fifo_timeout, NSEC_PER_MSEC);
> > >
> > > - /* Add .02 seconds of slop */
> > > - fifo_timeout += 20 * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Add .02 seconds of slop. This also helps account for the fact that
> > > + * when we converted from ns to ms that we didn't round up.
> > > + */
> > > + return fifo_timeout_ms + 20;
> > > +}
> > >
> > > - return max(nsecs_to_jiffies(fifo_timeout), 1UL);
> > > +static inline unsigned long uart_fifo_timeout(struct uart_port *port)
> > > +{
> > > + return msecs_to_jiffies(uart_fifo_timeout_ms(port));
> > > }
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is definitely towards the right direction! However, it now does
> > double conversion, first div_u64() and then msecs_to_jiffies(). Perhaps it
> > would be better to retain the nsecs version (maybe rename it to _ns for
> > consistency) and add _ms variant that does the nsec -> msec conversion.
>
> I spent a bit of time thinking about it and I don't agree. If you feel
> very strongly about it or someone else wants to jump in and break the
> tie then I can look again, but:
>
> 1. The comment before nsecs_to_jiffies() specifically states that it's
> not supposed to be used for this purpose. Specifically, it says:
>
> * Unlike {m,u}secs_to_jiffies, type of input is not unsigned int but u64.
> * And this doesn't return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET since this function is designed
> * for scheduler, not for use in device drivers to calculate timeout value.
>
> ...so switching away from nsecs_to_jiffies() to msecs_to_jiffies() is
> arguably a "bugfix", or at least avoids using the API in a way that's
> against the documentation.
Okay, I see. However, there's no way around using u64 here even with your
version that does not use nsecs_to_jiffies() because nsecs is the most
useful form of input when starting from frame_time, usecs is a bit
coarse-grained for higher data rates.
> 2. As mentioned in the commit message, nsecs_to_jiffies() truncates
> where msecs_to_jiffies() rounds up. Presumably this difference is
> related to the comment above where the "ns" version is intended for
> the scheduler. Using the "ms" version allows us to get rid of the
> extra call to "max()" which is a benefit. Technically since the
> timeout is at least 20 ms the minimum HZ is 100 I guess we didn't need
> the max anyway, but I guess someone thought it was cleaner and now we
> can definitely get rid of it.
>
> 3. These functions are inline anyway, so I don't think it's causing a
> huge bloat of instructions. In fact, moving from 64-bit math to 32-bit
> math sooner could make the code smaller.
>
> 4. I don't feel like it hurts the readability to convert down to ms
> and then to jiffies. In fact, IMO it helps since it makes it more
> obvious that we're working with ms.
I'd be lying if I'd say I feel strongly about it but my only argument
involves doing an extra divide which is somewhat costly. It's a
plain 32-bit divide though so not as bad as the u64 one that is
unavoidable.
--
i.
