| Message ID | 20161201233432.6182-3-grygorii.strashko@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:34:27PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > The currently processing cpdma descriptor with EOQ flag set may > contain two values in Next Descriptor Pointer field: > - valid pointer: means CPDMA missed addition of new desc in queue; It shouldn't happen in normal circumstances, right? So, why it happens only for egress channels? And Does that mean there is some resynchronization between submit and process function, or this is h/w issue? > - null: no more descriptors in queue. > In the later case, it's not required to write to HDP register, but now > CPDMA does it. > > Hence, add additional check for Next Descriptor Pointer != null in > cpdma_chan_process() function before writing in HDP register. > > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > index 0924014..379314f 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static int __cpdma_chan_process(struct cpdma_chan *chan) > chan->count--; > chan->stats.good_dequeue++; > > - if (status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) { > + if ((status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && chan->head) { > chan->stats.requeue++; > chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_phys(pool, chan->head)); > } > -- > 2.10.1 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/02/2016 05:03 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:34:27PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> The currently processing cpdma descriptor with EOQ flag set may >> contain two values in Next Descriptor Pointer field: >> - valid pointer: means CPDMA missed addition of new desc in queue; > It shouldn't happen in normal circumstances, right? it might happen, because desc push compete with desc pop. You can check stats values: chan->stats.misqueued chan->stats.requeue under different types of net-loads. TRM: " If the pNext pointer is initially NULL, and more packets need to be queued for transmit, the software application may alter this pointer to point to a newly appended descriptor. The EMAC will use the new pointer value and proceed to the next descriptor unless the pNext value has already been read. In this latter case, the transmitter will halt on the transmit channel in question, and the software application may restart it at that time. The software can detect this case by checking for an end of queue (EOQ) condition flag on the updated packet descriptor when it is returned by the EMAC. " > So, why it happens only for egress channels? And Does that mean > there is some resynchronization between submit and process function, > or this is h/w issue? no hw issues. this patch just removes one unnecessary I/O access > >> - null: no more descriptors in queue. >> In the later case, it's not required to write to HDP register, but now >> CPDMA does it. >> >> Hence, add additional check for Next Descriptor Pointer != null in >> cpdma_chan_process() function before writing in HDP register. >> >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> index 0924014..379314f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static int __cpdma_chan_process(struct cpdma_chan *chan) >> chan->count--; >> chan->stats.good_dequeue++; >> >> - if (status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) { >> + if ((status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && chan->head) { >> chan->stats.requeue++; >> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_phys(pool, chan->head)); >> } >> -- >> 2.10.1 >>
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:45:07AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > > On 12/02/2016 05:03 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:34:27PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > >> The currently processing cpdma descriptor with EOQ flag set may > >> contain two values in Next Descriptor Pointer field: > >> - valid pointer: means CPDMA missed addition of new desc in queue; > > It shouldn't happen in normal circumstances, right? > > it might happen, because desc push compete with desc pop. > You can check stats values: > chan->stats.misqueued > chan->stats.requeue > under different types of net-loads. I've done this, of-course. By whole logic the misqueued counter has to cover all cases. But that's not true. > > TRM: > " > If the pNext pointer is initially NULL, and more packets need to be queued for transmit, the software > application may alter this pointer to point to a newly appended descriptor. The EMAC will use the new > pointer value and proceed to the next descriptor unless the pNext value has already been read. In this > latter case, the transmitter will halt on the transmit channel in question, and the software application may > restart it at that time. The software can detect this case by checking for an end of queue (EOQ) condition > flag on the updated packet descriptor when it is returned by the EMAC. > " That's true. No issues in desc. In the code no any place to update next_desc except submit function. And this case is supposed to be caught here: For submit: cpdma_chan_submit() spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock); ... --->__cpdma_chan_submit() ... ------> desc_write(prev, hw_next, desc_dma); // here next pointer is updated, it can be not in time ... ------> mode = desc_read(prev, hw_mode); // pay attention, it's read after updating next pointer ------> if ((mode & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && ------> (chan->state == CPDMA_STATE_ACTIVE)) { // here checked if it was late update ---------> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_dma); // here transmit is restarted, if needed For process it only caught the fact of late update, but it has to be caught in submit() already: __cpdma_chan_process() spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock); ------> if (mode & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) // here transmit is restarted, if needed ---------> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_dma); // but w/o updating next pointer Seems there is no place where hw_next is updated w/o updating hdp :-| in case of late hw_next set. And that is strange. I know it happens, I've checked it before of-course. Then I thought, maybe there is some problem with write order, thus out of sync, nothing more. > > > > So, why it happens only for egress channels? And Does that mean > > there is some resynchronization between submit and process function, > > or this is h/w issue? > > no hw issues. this patch just removes one unnecessary I/O access No objections against patch. Anyway it's better then before. Just want to know the real reason why it happens, maybe there is smth else. > > > > >> - null: no more descriptors in queue. > >> In the later case, it's not required to write to HDP register, but now > >> CPDMA does it. > >> > >> Hence, add additional check for Next Descriptor Pointer != null in > >> cpdma_chan_process() function before writing in HDP register. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > >> index 0924014..379314f 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > >> @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static int __cpdma_chan_process(struct cpdma_chan *chan) > >> chan->count--; > >> chan->stats.good_dequeue++; > >> > >> - if (status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) { > >> + if ((status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && chan->head) { > >> chan->stats.requeue++; > >> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_phys(pool, chan->head)); > >> } > >> -- > >> 2.10.1 > >> > > -- > regards, > -grygorii -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/02/2016 05:28 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:45:07AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> >> >> On 12/02/2016 05:03 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:34:27PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> The currently processing cpdma descriptor with EOQ flag set may >>>> contain two values in Next Descriptor Pointer field: >>>> - valid pointer: means CPDMA missed addition of new desc in queue; >>> It shouldn't happen in normal circumstances, right? >> >> it might happen, because desc push compete with desc pop. >> You can check stats values: >> chan->stats.misqueued >> chan->stats.requeue >> under different types of net-loads. > I've done this, of-course. > By whole logic the misqueued counter has to cover all cases. > But that's not true. > >> >> TRM: >> " >> If the pNext pointer is initially NULL, and more packets need to be queued for transmit, the software >> application may alter this pointer to point to a newly appended descriptor. The EMAC will use the new >> pointer value and proceed to the next descriptor unless the pNext value has already been read. In this >> latter case, the transmitter will halt on the transmit channel in question, and the software application may >> restart it at that time. The software can detect this case by checking for an end of queue (EOQ) condition >> flag on the updated packet descriptor when it is returned by the EMAC. >> " > That's true. No issues in desc. > In the code no any place to update next_desc except submit function. > > And this case is supposed to be caught here: > For submit: > cpdma_chan_submit() > spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock); > ... > --->__cpdma_chan_submit() > ... > ------> desc_write(prev, hw_next, desc_dma); // here next pointer is updated, it can be not in time > ... > ------> mode = desc_read(prev, hw_mode); // pay attention, it's read after updating next pointer > ------> if ((mode & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && > ------> (chan->state == CPDMA_STATE_ACTIVE)) { // here checked if it was late update > ---------> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_dma); // here transmit is restarted, if needed You've forgot about CPPI hw itself - it's not sync by sw, and so continue run in background - as result, CPPI might read "next" already, but flags are not updated yet. > > For process it only caught the fact of late update, but it has to be caught in > submit() already: > __cpdma_chan_process() > spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock); > ------> if (mode & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) // here transmit is restarted, if needed > ---------> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_dma); // but w/o updating next pointer > > Seems there is no place where hw_next is updated w/o updating hdp :-| in case > of late hw_next set. And that is strange. I know it happens, I've checked it > before of-course. Then I thought, maybe there is some problem with write order, > thus out of sync, nothing more. > >> >> >>> So, why it happens only for egress channels? And Does that mean >>> there is some resynchronization between submit and process function, >>> or this is h/w issue? >> >> no hw issues. this patch just removes one unnecessary I/O access > No objections against patch. Anyway it's better then before. > Just want to know the real reason why it happens, maybe there is smth else. > >> >>> >>>> - null: no more descriptors in queue. >>>> In the later case, it's not required to write to HDP register, but now >>>> CPDMA does it. >>>> >>>> Hence, add additional check for Next Descriptor Pointer != null in >>>> cpdma_chan_process() function before writing in HDP register. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >>>> index 0924014..379314f 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >>>> @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static int __cpdma_chan_process(struct cpdma_chan *chan) >>>> chan->count--; >>>> chan->stats.good_dequeue++; >>>> >>>> - if (status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) { >>>> + if ((status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && chan->head) { >>>> chan->stats.requeue++; >>>> chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_phys(pool, chan->head)); >>>> } >>>> -- >>>> 2.10.1 >>>> >> >> -- >> regards, >> -grygorii
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c index 0924014..379314f 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static int __cpdma_chan_process(struct cpdma_chan *chan) chan->count--; chan->stats.good_dequeue++; - if (status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) { + if ((status & CPDMA_DESC_EOQ) && chan->head) { chan->stats.requeue++; chan_write(chan, hdp, desc_phys(pool, chan->head)); }
The currently processing cpdma descriptor with EOQ flag set may contain two values in Next Descriptor Pointer field: - valid pointer: means CPDMA missed addition of new desc in queue; - null: no more descriptors in queue. In the later case, it's not required to write to HDP register, but now CPDMA does it. Hence, add additional check for Next Descriptor Pointer != null in cpdma_chan_process() function before writing in HDP register. Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)