Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:15:47 +0800 | From | Jisheng Zhang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: mvneta: improve suspend/resume |
| |
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:54:32 +0200 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello Jisheng,
Hi Thomas,
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:15:36 +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > Current suspend/resume implementation reuses the mvneta_open() and > > mvneta_close(), but it could be optimized to take only necessary > > actions during suspend/resume. > > > > One obvious problem of current implementation is: after hundreds of > > system suspend/resume cycles, the resume of mvneta could fail due to > > fragmented dma coherent memory. After this patch, the non-necessary > > memory alloc/free is optimized out. > > Indeed, this needs to be fixed, you're totally right. > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c > > index 4ec69bbd1eb4..1870f1dd7093 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c > > @@ -4575,14 +4575,46 @@ static int mvneta_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > static int mvneta_suspend(struct device *device) > > { > > + int queue; > > struct net_device *dev = dev_get_drvdata(device); > > struct mvneta_port *pp = netdev_priv(dev); > > > > - rtnl_lock(); > > - if (netif_running(dev)) > > - mvneta_stop(dev); > > - rtnl_unlock(); > > + if (!netif_running(dev)) > > + return 0; > > This is changing the behavior I believe. The current code is: > > rtnl_lock(); > if (netif_running(dev)) > mvneta_stop(dev); > rtnl_unlock(); > netif_device_detach(dev); > clk_disable_unprepare(pp->clk_bus); > clk_disable_unprepare(pp->clk); > return 0; > > So, when netif_running(dev) is false, we're indeed not calling > mvneta_stop(), but we're still doing netif_device_detach(), and > disabling the clocks. With your change, we're no longer doing these > steps.
Indeed, will try to keep the behavior in v2
> > > + > > netif_device_detach(dev); > > + > > + mvneta_stop_dev(pp); > > + > > + if (!pp->neta_armada3700) { > > + spin_lock(&pp->lock); > > + pp->is_stopped = true; > > + spin_unlock(&pp->lock); > > Real question: is it OK to set pp->is_stopped *after* calling > mvneta_stop_dev(), while it was set before calling mvneta_stop_dev() in > the current code ?
oops, you are right. Fixed in v2
> > > + > > + cpuhp_state_remove_instance_nocalls(online_hpstate, > > + &pp->node_online); > > + cpuhp_state_remove_instance_nocalls(CPUHP_NET_MVNETA_DEAD, > > + &pp->node_dead); > > Do we need to remove/add those CPU notifiers when suspending/resuming ?
Take mvneta_cpu_online() as an example, if we don't remove it during suspend, when system is resume back, it will touch mac when secondary cpu is ON, but at this point the mvneta isn't resumed, this is not safe.
> > > + } > > + > > + for (queue = 0; queue < rxq_number; queue++) { > > + struct mvneta_rx_queue *rxq = &pp->rxqs[queue]; > > + > > + mvneta_rxq_drop_pkts(pp, rxq); > > + } > > Wouldn't it make sense to have > mvneta_rxq_sw_deinit/mvneta_rxq_hw_deinit(), like you did for the > initialization ?
For rxq deinit, we'd like to drop rx pkts, this is both HW and SW operation. So we reuse mvneta_rxq_drop_pkts() here.
> > > + > > + for (queue = 0; queue < txq_number; queue++) { > > + struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq = &pp->txqs[queue]; > > + > > + /* Set minimum bandwidth for disabled TXQs */ > > + mvreg_write(pp, MVETH_TXQ_TOKEN_CFG_REG(txq->id), 0); > > + mvreg_write(pp, MVETH_TXQ_TOKEN_COUNT_REG(txq->id), 0); > > + > > + /* Set Tx descriptors queue starting address and size */ > > + mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_TXQ_BASE_ADDR_REG(txq->id), 0); > > + mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_TXQ_SIZE_REG(txq->id), 0); > > + } > > Same comment here: a mvneta_txq_sw_deinit()/mvneta_txq_hw_deinit() > would be good, and would avoid duplicating this logic.
yep, will do in v2.
Thanks a lot for the kind review.
| |