On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:34:45PM +0200, David Jander wrote: > Sorry for sending an RFC without actual patches. What I am about to propose > would require a lot of work, and I am sure I will not get it right without > first asking for comments. I also assume that I might not be the only one > asking/proposing this, and may ignore the existence of discussions that may > have happened in the past. If I am committing a crime, please accept my > apologies and let me know. > TL;DR: drivers/spi/spi.c API has too much overhead for some use cases. It would be really helpful if you could describe in concrete terms your actual use case here. According to your mail you are testing with a single threaded echo server which is obviously not a realistic application and will be a bit of a limiting factor, it would be good to understand what's going on in a way that's less microbenchmarky. High level it feels like you are approaching this at the wrong level, as far as I can tell you are proposing a completely separate API for drivers which cuts out all the locking which doesn't seem like a very usable API for them as the performance characteristics are going to end up being very system and application specific, it's going to be hard for them to assess which API to use. I'm not seeing anything here that says add a new API, there's certainly room to make the existing API more performant but I don't see the jump to a new API. > There are many use-cases for SPI in the Linux kernel, and they all have > special requirements and trade-offs: On one side one wants to transfer large > amount of data to the peripheral efficiently (FLASH memory) and without > blocking. On the opposite side there is the need to modify registers in a > SPI-mapped peripheral, ideally using regmap. > There are two APIs already: sync and async, that should cover these use-cases. > Unfortunately both share a large portion of the code path, which causes the > sync use-case for small, fast register manipulation to be bogged down by all > the accounting and statistics code. There's also sometimes memcpy()'s involved > to put buffers into DMA space (driver dependent), even though DMA isn't used. That's not really a good description of what's going on with those APIs or choosing between them - there's certainly no short/long message distinction intended, the distinction is more about if the user needs to get the results of the transfer before proceeding with a side order of the sync APIs being more convenient to use. In general if a user has a lot of work to do and doesn't specifically need to block for it there will often be a performance advantage in using the async API, even if the individual messages are short. Submitting asynchronously means that we are more likely to be able to start pushing a new message immediately after completion of one message which minimises dead time on the bus, and opens up opportunities for preparing one message while the current one is in flight that don't otherwise exist (opportunities than we currently make much use of). Conversely a large message where we need the result in order to proceed is going to do just fine with the sync API, it is actually a synchronous operation after all. One example of lots of potentially short messages is regmap's cache sync code, it uses async writes to sync the register map so that it can overlap working out what to sync and marshalling the data with the actual writes - that tends to pan out as meaning that the sync completes faster since we can often identify and queue several more registers to write in the time it takes to send the first one which works out faster even with PIO controllers and bouncing to the worker thread, the context switching ends up being less than the time taken to work out what to send for even a fairly small number of registers. > Assuming the *sync* API cannot be changed, this leads to the need to introduce > a new API optimized specifically for this use-case. IMHO it is also reasonable > to say that when accessing registers on a peripheral device, the whole > statistics and accounting machinery in spi.c isn't really so valuable, and > definitely not worth its overhead in a production system. That seems like a massive assumption, one could equally say that any application that is saturating the SPI bus is going to be likely to want to be able to monitor the performance and utilisation of the bus in order to facilitate optimisation and so want the statistics. > 5. Details of the SPI transfers involved > ---------------------------------------- > > The MCP2518FD CAN driver does a series of small SPI transfers when running a > single CAN message from cangen to canecho and back: > > 1. CAN message RX, IRQ line asserted > 2. Hard IRQ empty, starts IRQ thread > 3. IRQ thread interrogates MCP2518FD via register access: > 3.1. SPI transfer 1: CS low, 72bit xfer, CS high > 3.2. SPI transfer 2: CS low, 200bit xfer, CS high > 3.3. SPI transfer 3: CS low, 72bit xfer, CS high > 3.4. SPI transfer 4: CS low, 104bit xfer, CS high > 4. IRQ thread ended, RX message gets delivered to user-space > 5. canecho.c recv() > 6. canecho.c send() > 7. TX message gets delivered to CAN driver > 8. CAN driver does spi_async to queue 2 xfers (replace by spi_sync equivalent > in kernel C): > 8.1. SPI message 1: CS low, 168bit xfer, CS high, CS low, 48bit xfer, CS high > 9. CAN message SOF starts appearing on the bus just before last CS high. Note that this is all totally single threaded and sequential which is going to change the performance characteristics substantially, for example adding and driving another echo server or even just having the remote end push another message into flight before it waits for a response would get more mileage out of the async API. > 6.1. Accounting spinlocks: > Spinlocks are supposed to be fast, especially for the case that they are not > contested, but in such critical paths their impact shouldn't be neglected. > SPI_STATISTICS_ADD_TO_FIELD: This macro defined in spi.h has a spinlock, and > it is used 4 times directly in __spi_sync(). It is also used in > spi_transfer_one_message() which is called from there. Removing the spinlocks > (thus introducing races) makes the code measurably faster (several us). > spi_statistics_add_transfer_stats(): Called twice from > spi_transfer_one_message(), and also contains a spinlock. Removing these again > has a measurable impact of several us. So for example a sysctl to suppress stats, or making the stats code fancier with per cpu data or whatever so it doesn't need to lock in the hot path would help here (obviously the latter is a bit nicer). Might be interesting seeing if it's the irqsave bit that's causing trouble here, I'm not sure that's actually required other than for the error counters. > spi_set_cs(): Removing all delay code and leaving the bare minimum for GPIO > based CS activation again has a measurable impact. Most (all?) simple SPI > peripheral chips don't have any special CS->clock->CS timing requirements, so > it might be a good idea to have a simpler version of this function. Surely the thing there would just be to set the delays to zero if they can actually be zero (and add a special case for actually zero delay which we don't currently have)? But in any case devices do always have some minimum requirements for delays at various points around asserting chip select, plus there's considerations around providing enough ramp time for signals to reach appropriate levels which are more system level than chip level. The required delays are normally very small so effectively pan out as zero in a lot of systems but the faster things run (both on the bus and for the SoC) the more visible they get and more attention needs to be paid. It should be possible to do something to assess a delay as being effectively zero and round down which would feed in here when we're managing the chip select from software but we can't just ignore the delays. I note that for example that the MPC2515 quotes minimum chip select setup, hold and disable times of 50ns - those are very small, but they are non-zero. > Since this hypothetical new API would be used only for very short, very fast > transfers where latency and overhead should be minimized, the best way to do > it is obviate all scheduling work and do it strictly synchronous and based on > polling. The context switch of even a hard-IRQ can quickly cost a lot more CPU > cycles than busy waiting for 48 bits to be shifted through the transmitter at > 20+MHz clock. This requires that SPI drivers offer low-level functions that do > such simple transfers on polling basis. The patches [1] from Marc Kleine-Budde > already do this, but it is the SPI driver that choses whether to use polling or > IRQ based transfers based on heuristics calculating the theoretical transfer > time given the clock frequency and its size. While it improves the performance > in a lot of cases already, peripheral drivers have no choice but to still go > through all the heavy code in spi.c. There's a whole pile of assumptions in there about the specific system you're running on and how it's going to perform. Like I said above it really feels like this is the wrong level to approach things at, it's pushing decisions to the client driver that are really system specific. Why would a client doing "short" transfers (short itself being a fuzzy term) not want to use this interface, and what happens when for example someone puts one of these CAN controllers on a USB dongle which simply can't implement a non-blocking mode? We should aim to do things which just benefit any client driver using the APIs idiomatically without them having to make assumptions about either the performance characteristics of the system they're running on or the features it has, especially if those assumptions would make the driver unusuable on some systems. > Since these are low-latency applications, chances are very high that the > hardware is also designed for low-latency access, which implies that CS > control via GPIO most probably uses local GPIO controllers instead of I2C GPIO > expanders for example, so CS access can be assumed to be fast and direct and High chances are not guarantees, and none of this sounds like things that should require specific coding in the client drivers. > not involve any context switches. It could be argued that it might even be > beneficial to have an API that can be called from hard IRQ context, but > experiments in this case showed that the gain of doing the CAN message read > out directly in hard-IRQ and removing the IRQ thread is minimal. But better > use-cases could be conceived, so this possibility might need consideration > also. That's something that the async API (or the sync API in the contended case) can enable - if we have another transfer queued then we would if someone did the work be able to arrange to start pushing it immediately the prior transfer completes. > Care should be taken to solve locking in such a way, that it doesn't impact > performance for the fast API, while still allowing safe concurrency with > spi_sync and spi_async. I did not go as far as to solve this issue. I just > used a simple spinlock and carefully avoided using any call to the old API for > doing these proof-of-concept measurements. Apart from the hard bits... :P The only bits of the existing code that you've specifically identified as taking substantial time here are the delays and the statistics, both of these seem like areas which could just be improved in place without requiring changes outside of the SPI subsystem that benefit all users. It sounds like the bits you've profiled as causing trouble are delays and stats synchronisation which does sound plausible but those do also seem like they can be specifically targetted - being smarter about when we actually do a delay, and either improving the locking or providing more optimisation for the stats code. If there are other bits of the message setup code which are getting in the way and don't have obvious paths for optimisation (the validation potentially?) then if your application is spamming a lot of the same operation (eg, with the status reading in the interrupt handler) then quite a while ago Martin Sparl was looking at providing an interface which would allow client drivers to pre-cook messages so that they could be submitted multiple times without going through the validation that we normally do (and perhaps get some driver preparation done as well). He was looking at it for other reasons but it seems like a productive approach for cutting down on the setup overhead, it would require more up front work in the client but cut down on the amount of work done per operation and seems like it should scale well over different systems. > Performance of spi.c API for the specified use-cases is not ideal. > Unfortunately there is no single smoking gun to be pointed at, but instead > many different bits which are not needed for the given use-case that add to > the bloat and ultimately have a big combined performance impact. > The stated usage scenario is fairly common in the Linux kernel. A simple > investigation counted 60+ IIO drivers and 9 input drivers alone that use > spi_sync*() for example, up to a total of 171 .c files. In contrast only 11 .c > files use the spi_async*() calls. This does not account for all users of > regmap_spi. > Due to this, IMHO one can ask for a better, simpler, more efficient API for > these use-cases, am I want to propose to create it. I see the problem, what I don't see is why it requires a new externally visible API to solve it beyond the suggestion about potentially preparing messages for repeated use if that's even something that's really registering.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
