Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:56:44 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver | From | Naresh Maramaina <> |
| |
On 12/6/2023 8:56 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:00:59PM +0530, Maramaina Naresh wrote: >> Register ufs driver to CPU latency PM QoS framework can improves >> ufs device random io performance. >> >> PM QoS initialization will insert new QoS request into the CPU >> latency QoS list with the maximum latency PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE >> value. >> >> UFS driver will vote for performance mode on scale up and power >> save mode for scale down. >> >> If clock scaling feature is not enabled then voting will be based >> on clock on or off condition. >> >> tiotest benchmark tool io performance results on sm8550 platform: >> >> 1. Without PM QoS support >> Type (Speed in) | Average of 18 iterations >> Random Write(IPOS) | 41065.13 >> Random Read(IPOS) | 37101.3 >> >> 2. With PM QoS support >> Type (Speed in) | Average of 18 iterations >> Random Write(IPOS) | 46784.9 >> Random Read(IPOS) | 42943.4 >> (Improvement % with PM QoS = ~15%). >> >> Co-developed-by: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Naveen Kumar Goud Arepalli <quic_narepall@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Maramaina Naresh <quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com> >> --- >> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h | 8 +++++ >> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 16 +++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 86 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h >> index f42d99ce5bf1..536805f6c4e1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h >> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h >> @@ -241,6 +241,14 @@ static inline void ufshcd_vops_config_scaling_param(struct ufs_hba *hba, >> hba->vops->config_scaling_param(hba, p, data); >> } >> >> +static inline u32 ufshcd_vops_config_qos_vote(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> +{ >> + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->config_qos_vote) >> + return hba->vops->config_qos_vote(hba); > > Please remove this callback as Bart noted. >
Sure Mani, will takecare of this comment.
>> + >> + return UFSHCD_QOS_DEFAULT_VOTE; >> +} >> + >> static inline void ufshcd_vops_reinit_notify(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> { >> if (hba->vops && hba->vops->reinit_notify) >> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c >> index ae9936fc6ffb..13370febd2b5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c >> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c >> @@ -1001,6 +1001,20 @@ static bool ufshcd_is_unipro_pa_params_tuning_req(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> return ufshcd_get_local_unipro_ver(hba) < UFS_UNIPRO_VER_1_6; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * ufshcd_pm_qos_perf - vote for PM QoS performance or power save mode > > ufshcd_pm_qos_update() - Update PM QoS request >
Sure Mani, will takecare of this comment.
>> + * @hba: per adapter instance >> + * @on: If True, vote for perf PM QoS mode otherwise power save mode >> + */ >> +static void ufshcd_pm_qos_perf(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool on) >> +{ >> + if (!hba->pm_qos_init) >> + return; >> + >> + cpu_latency_qos_update_request(&hba->pm_qos_req, on ? hba->qos_vote >> + : PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); >> +} >> + >> /** >> * ufshcd_set_clk_freq - set UFS controller clock frequencies >> * @hba: per adapter instance >> @@ -1153,6 +1167,10 @@ static int ufshcd_scale_clks(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned long freq, >> trace_ufshcd_profile_clk_scaling(dev_name(hba->dev), >> (scale_up ? "up" : "down"), >> ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start)), ret); >> + >> + if (!ret) >> + ufshcd_pm_qos_perf(hba, scale_up); > > Can't you just move this before trace_ufshcd_profile_clk_scaling()? This also > avoids checking for !ret. >
In this case, we need to use goto out; inside if(ret) of ufshcd_vops_clk_scale_notify. will do the above change, to enable ufshcd_pm_qos_perf before the out flag.
>> + >> return ret; >> } >> >> @@ -9204,6 +9222,8 @@ static int ufshcd_setup_clocks(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool on) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> + if (!ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba)) >> + ufshcd_pm_qos_perf(hba, on); >> out: >> if (ret) { >> list_for_each_entry(clki, head, list) { >> @@ -9296,6 +9316,45 @@ static int ufshcd_init_clocks(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> return ret; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * ufshcd_pm_qos_init - initialize PM QoS instance > > "Initialize PM QoS request" >
Sure Mani, will takecare of this comment.
>> + * @hba: per adapter instance >> + */ >> +static void ufshcd_pm_qos_init(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> +{ >> + if (!(hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_PM_QOS)) >> + return; >> + >> + /* >> + * called to configure PM QoS vote value for UFS host, >> + * expecting qos vote return value from caller else >> + * default vote value will be return. >> + */ >> + hba->qos_vote = ufshcd_vops_config_qos_vote(hba); > > No need of this variable too if you get rid of the callback. > >> + cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&hba->pm_qos_req, >> + PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); >> + >> + if (cpu_latency_qos_request_active(&hba->pm_qos_req)) >> + hba->pm_qos_init = true; > > Why do you need this flag?
this flag ensure UFS qos request got added into the Global PM QoS list.
> >> + >> + dev_dbg(hba->dev, "%s: QoS %s, qos_vote: %u\n", __func__, >> + hba->pm_qos_init ? "initialized" : "uninitialized", >> + hba->qos_vote); >> +} >> + >> +/** >> + * ufshcd_pm_qos_exit - remove instance from PM QoS >> + * @hba: per adapter instance >> + */ >> +static void ufshcd_pm_qos_exit(struct ufs_hba *hba) >> +{ >> + if (!hba->pm_qos_init) >> + return; >> + >> + cpu_latency_qos_remove_request(&hba->pm_qos_req); >> + hba->pm_qos_init = false; >> +} >> + > > [...] > >> /** >> * struct ufs_hba - per adapter private structure >> * @mmio_base: UFSHCI base register address >> @@ -912,6 +923,8 @@ enum ufshcd_mcq_opr { >> * @mcq_base: Multi circular queue registers base address >> * @uhq: array of supported hardware queues >> * @dev_cmd_queue: Queue for issuing device management commands >> + * @pm_qos_req: PM QoS request handle >> + * @pm_qos_init: flag to check if pm qos init completed >> */ >> struct ufs_hba { >> void __iomem *mmio_base; >> @@ -1076,6 +1089,9 @@ struct ufs_hba { >> struct ufs_hw_queue *uhq; >> struct ufs_hw_queue *dev_cmd_queue; >> struct ufshcd_mcq_opr_info_t mcq_opr[OPR_MAX]; >> + struct pm_qos_request pm_qos_req; >> + bool pm_qos_init; >> + u32 qos_vote; > > Order doesn't match Kdoc. >
we are removing qos_vote variable in next patch series.
> - Mani >
Thanks, Naresh.
| |