Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 09/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add support for batch RPMH request | From | Raju P L S S S N <> | Date | Mon, 11 Jun 2018 22:47:30 +0530 |
| |
Hi,
On 5/31/2018 3:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Raju P L S S S N > <rplsssn@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> #define DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, s, q, name) \ >> struct rpmh_request name = { \ >> @@ -35,6 +37,7 @@ >> .completion = q, \ >> .dev = dev, \ >> .needs_free = false, \ >> + .wait_count = NULL, \ > > You ignored my feedback on v8 that wait_count is not useful. Please > squash in <http://crosreview.com/1079905>. That also has a fix where > it introduces a WARN_ON for the timeout case in batch mode too.
Oh. Sorry.. I missed it. Thanks for pointing out. Will take up in next spin
> > >> +/** >> + * rpmh_write_batch: Write multiple sets of RPMH commands and wait for the >> + * batch to finish. >> + * >> + * @dev: the device making the request >> + * @state: Active/sleep set >> + * @cmd: The payload data >> + * @n: The array of count of elements in each batch, 0 terminated. >> + * >> + * Write a request to the RSC controller without caching. If the request >> + * state is ACTIVE, then the requests are treated as completion request >> + * and sent to the controller immediately. The function waits until all the >> + * commands are complete. If the request was to SLEEP or WAKE_ONLY, then the >> + * request is sent as fire-n-forget and no ack is expected. >> + * >> + * May sleep. Do not call from atomic contexts for ACTIVE_ONLY requests. >> + */ >> +int rpmh_write_batch(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state, >> + const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, u32 *n) >> +{ >> + struct rpmh_request *rpm_msg[RPMH_MAX_REQ_IN_BATCH] = { NULL }; >> + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl); >> + atomic_t wait_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0); >> + struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = get_rpmh_ctrlr(dev); >> + int count = 0; >> + int ret, i, j; >> + >> + if (IS_ERR(ctrlr) || !cmd || !n) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + while (n[count++] > 0) >> + ; >> + count--; >> + if (!count || count > RPMH_MAX_REQ_IN_BATCH) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >> + rpm_msg[i] = __get_rpmh_msg_async(state, cmd, n[i]); >> + if (IS_ERR(rpm_msg[i])) { >> + ret = PTR_ERR(rpm_msg[i]); >> + for (j = i-1; j >= 0; j--) { >> + if (rpm_msg[j]->needs_free) > > How could needs_free be false here?
Yes. Just an additional check. Can be omitted. Will do it in next spin.
> >> + kfree(rpm_msg[j]); >> + } >> + return ret; >> + } >> + cmd += n[i]; >> + } >> + >> + if (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE) >> + return cache_batch(ctrlr, rpm_msg, count); > > Previously I said: >> Don't you need to free rpm_msg items in this case? > > ...but I think that wasn't clear enough. Perhaps I should have said: > > Don't you need to free rpm_msg items in the case where cache_batch > returns an error? AKA squash in <http://crosreview.com/1079906>.
Now I got it. will add the changes in next spin.
> > >> + >> + atomic_set(&wait_count, count); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >> + rpm_msg[i]->completion = &compl; >> + rpm_msg[i]->wait_count = &wait_count; >> + ret = rpmh_rsc_send_data(ctrlr->drv, &rpm_msg[i]->msg); >> + if (ret) { >> + int j; > > You're shadowing another "j" variable. Please squash in > <http://crosreview.com/1080027>. >
Agreed.
>> + >> + pr_err("Error(%d) sending RPMH message addr=%#x\n", >> + ret, rpm_msg[i]->msg.cmds[0].addr); >> + for (j = i; j < count; j++) >> + rpmh_tx_done(&rpm_msg[j]->msg, ret); > > Previously I said: > >> Note that you'll probably do your error handling in this >> function a favor if you rename __get_rpmh_msg_async() >> to __fill_rpmh_msg() and remove the memory >> allocation from there > > I tried to implement this but then I realized cache_batch() requires > individual allocation. Sigh. > > OK, I attempted this in <http://crosreview.com/1080028>. This gets > rid of several static-sized arrays and gets rid of all of the little > memory allocations in rpmh_write_batch(), replacing it with one bigger > one. In my mind this is an improvement, but I welcome other opinions. > > As discussed previously, I'm still of the belief that we'll be better > off getting rid of separate "batch" data structures. I'll see if I > can find some time to do that too and see how it looks. > > > -Doug >
Thanks, Raju
| |