Hi, Wesley Cheng <wcheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>> to be honest, I don't think these should go in (apart from the build >>>>>>> failure) because it's likely to break instantiations of the core with >>>>>>> differing FIFO sizes. Some instantiations even have some endpoints with >>>>>>> dedicated functionality that requires the default FIFO size configured >>>>>>> during coreConsultant instantiation. I know of at OMAP5 and some Intel >>>>>>> implementations which have dedicated endpoints for processor tracing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With OMAP5, these endpoints are configured at the top of the available >>>>>>> endpoints, which means that if a gadget driver gets loaded and takes >>>>>>> over most of the FIFO space because of this resizing, processor tracing >>>>>>> will have a hard time running. That being said, processor tracing isn't >>>>>>> supported in upstream at this moment. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree that the application of this logic may differ between vendors, >>>>> hence why I wanted to keep this controllable by the DT property, so that >>>>> for those which do not support this use case can leave it disabled. The >>>>> logic is there to ensure that for a given USB configuration, for each EP >>>>> it would have at least 1 TX FIFO. For USB configurations which don't >>>>> utilize all available IN EPs, it would allow re-allocation of internal >>>>> memory to EPs which will actually be in use. >>>> >>>> The feature ends up being all-or-nothing, then :-) It sounds like we can >>>> be a little nicer in this regard. >>>> >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, I think once those features become available >>> upstream, we can improve the logic. From what I remember when looking >> >> sure, I support that. But I want to make sure the first cut isn't likely >> to break things left and right :) >> >> Hence, let's at least get more testing. >> > > Sure, I'd hope that the other users of DWC3 will also see some pretty > big improvements on the TX path with this. fingers crossed >>> at Andy Shevchenko's Github, the Intel tracer downstream changes were >>> just to remove physical EP1 and 2 from the DWC3 endpoint list. If that >> >> right, that's the reason why we introduced the endpoint feature >> flags. The end goal was that the UDC would be able to have custom >> feature flags paired with ->validate_endpoint() or whatever before >> allowing it to be enabled. Then the UDC driver could tell UDC core to >> skip that endpoint on that particular platform without interefering with >> everything else. >> >> Of course, we still need to figure out a way to abstract the different >> dwc3 instantiations. >> >>> was the change which ended up upstream for the Intel tracer then we >>> could improve the logic to avoid re-sizing those particular EPs. >> >> The problem then, just as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, will be >> coming up with a solution that's elegant and works for all different >> instantiations of dwc3 (or musb, cdns3, etc). >> > > Well, at least for the TX FIFO resizing logic, we'd only be needing to > focus on the DWC3 implementation. > > You bring up another good topic that I'll eventually needing to be > taking a look at, which is a nice way we can handle vendor specific > endpoints and how they can co-exist with other "normal" endpoints. We > have a few special HW eps as well, which we try to maintain separately > in our DWC3 vendor driver, but it isn't the most convenient, or most > pretty method :). Awesome, as mentioned, the endpoint feature flags were added exactly to allow for these vendor-specific features :-) I'm more than happy to help testing now that I finally got our SM8150 Surface Duo device tree accepted by Bjorn ;-) >>> However, I'm not sure how the changes would look like in the end, so I >>> would like to wait later down the line to include that :). >> >> Fair enough, I agree. Can we get some more testing of $subject, though? >> Did you test $subject with upstream too? Which gadget drivers did you >> use? How did you test >> > > The results that I included in the cover page was tested with the pure > upstream kernel on our device. Below was using the ConfigFS gadget w/ a > mass storage only composition. > > Test Parameters: > - Platform: Qualcomm SM8150 > - bMaxBurst = 6 > - USB req size = 256kB > - Num of USB reqs = 16 do you mind testing with the regular request size (16KiB) and 250 requests? I think we can even do 15 bursts in that case. > - USB Speed = Super-Speed > - Function Driver: Mass Storage (w/ ramdisk) > - Test Application: CrystalDiskMark > > Results: > > TXFIFO Depth = 3 max packets > > Test Case | Data Size | AVG tput (in MB/s) > ------------------------------------------- > Sequential|1 GB x | > Read |9 loops | 193.60 > | | 195.86 > | | 184.77 > | | 193.60 > ------------------------------------------- > > TXFIFO Depth = 6 max packets > > Test Case | Data Size | AVG tput (in MB/s) > ------------------------------------------- > Sequential|1 GB x | > Read |9 loops | 287.35 > | | 304.94 > | | 289.64 > | | 293.61 I remember getting close to 400MiB/sec with Intel platforms without resizing FIFOs and I'm sure the FIFO size was set to 2x1024, though my memory could be failing. Then again, I never ran with CrystalDiskMark, I was using my own tool (it's somewhere in github. If you care, I can look up the URL). > We also have internal numbers which have shown similar improvements as > well. Those are over networking/tethering interfaces, so testing IPERF > loopback over TCP/UDP. loopback iperf? That would skip the wire, no? >>> size of 2 and TX threshold of 1, this would really be not beneficial to >>> us, because we can only change the TX threshold to 2 at max, and at >>> least in my observations, once we have to go out to system memory to >>> fetch the next data packet, that latency takes enough time for the >>> controller to end the current burst. >> >> What I noticed with g_mass_storage is that we can amortize the cost of >> fetching data from memory, with a deeper request queue. Whenever I >> test(ed) g_mass_storage, I was doing so with 250 requests. And that was >> enough to give me very good performance. Never had to poke at TX FIFO >> resizing. Did you try something like this too? >> >> I feel that allocating more requests is a far simpler and more generic >> method that changing FIFO sizes :) >> > > I wish I had a USB bus trace handy to show you, which would make it very > clear how the USB bus is currently utilized with TXFIFO size 2 vs 6. So > by increasing the number of USB requests, that will help if there was a > bottleneck at the SW level where the application/function driver > utilizing the DWC3 was submitting data much faster than the HW was > processing them. > > So yes, this method of increasing the # of USB reqs will definitely help > with situations such as HSUSB or in SSUSB when EP bursting isn't used. > The TXFIFO resize comes into play for SSUSB, which utilizes endpoint > bursting. Hmm, that's not what I remember. Perhaps the TRB cache size plays a role here too. I have clear memories of testing this very scenario of bursting (using g_mass_storage at the time) because I was curious about it. Back then, my tests showed no difference in behavior. It could be nice if Heikki could test Intel parts with and without your changes on g_mass_storage with 250 requests. > Now with endpoint bursting, if the function notifies the host that > bursting is supported, when the host sends the ACK for the Data Packet, > it should have a NumP value equal to the bMaxBurst reported in the EP Yes and no. Looking back at the history, we used to configure NUMP based on bMaxBurst, but it was changed later in commit 4e99472bc10bda9906526d725ff6d5f27b4ddca1 by yours truly because of a problem reported by John Youn. And now we've come full circle. Because even if I believe more requests are enough for bursting, NUMP is limited by the RxFIFO size. This ends up supporting your claim that we need RxFIFO resizing if we want to squeeze more throughput out of the controller. However, note that this is about RxFIFO size, not TxFIFO size. In fact, looking at Table 8-13 of USB 3.1 r1.0, we read the following about NumP (emphasis is mine): "Number of Packets (NumP). This field is used to indicate the number of Data Packet buffers that the **receiver** can accept. The value in this field shall be less than or equal to the maximum burst size supported by the endpoint as determined by the value in the bMaxBurst field in the Endpoint Companion Descriptor (refer to Section 9.6.7)." So, NumP is for the receiver, not the transmitter. Could you clarify what you mean here? /me keeps reading Hmm, table 8-15 tries to clarify: "Number of Packets (NumP). For an OUT endpoint, refer to Table 8-13 for the description of this field. For an IN endpoint this field is set by the endpoint to the number of packets it can transmit when the host resumes transactions to it. This field shall not have a value greater than the maximum burst size supported by the endpoint as indicated by the value in the bMaxBurst field in the Endpoint Companion Descriptor. Note that the value reported in this field may be treated by the host as informative only." However, if I remember correctly (please verify dwc3 databook), NUMP in DCFG was only for receive buffers. Thin, John, how does dwc3 compute NumP for TX/IN endpoints? Is that computed as a function of DCFG.NUMP or TxFIFO size? > desc. If we have a TXFIFO size of 2, then normally what I have seen is > that after 2 data packets, the device issues a NRDY. So then we'd need > to send an ERDY once data is available within the FIFO, and the same > sequence happens until the USB request is complete. With this constant > NRDY/ERDY handshake going on, you actually see that the bus is under > utilized. When we increase an EP's FIFO size, then you'll see constant > bursts for a request, until the request is done, or if the host runs out > of RXFIFO. (ie no interruption [on the USB protocol level] during USB > request data transfer) Unfortunately I don't have access to a USB sniffer anymore :-( >>>>>> Good points. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wesley, what kind of testing have you done on this on different devices? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As mentioned above, these changes are currently present on end user >>>>> devices for the past few years, so its been through a lot of testing :). >>>> >>>> all with the same gadget driver. Also, who uses USB on android devices >>>> these days? Most of the data transfer goes via WiFi or Bluetooth, anyway >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> I guess only developers are using USB during development to flash dev >>>> images heh. >>>> >>> >>> I used to be a customer facing engineer, so honestly I did see some >>> really interesting and crazy designs. Again, we do have non-Android >>> products that use the same code, and it has been working in there for a >>> few years as well. The TXFIFO sizing really has helped with multimedia >>> use cases, which use isoc endpoints, since esp. in those lower end CPU >>> chips where latencies across the system are much larger, and a missed >>> ISOC interval leads to a pop in your ear. >> >> This is good background information. Thanks for bringing this >> up. Admitedly, we still have ISOC issues with dwc3. I'm interested in >> knowing if a deeper request queue would also help here. >> >> Remember dwc3 can accomodate 255 requests + link for each endpoint. If >> our gadget driver uses a low number of requests, we're never really >> using the TRB ring in our benefit. >> > > We're actually using both a deeper USB request queue + TX fifo resizing. :). okay, great. Let's see what John and/or Thinh respond WRT dwc3 TX Burst behavior. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
