On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:32 AM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:46:42PM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > Note: I am using a small test app + driver located at [0] for the
> > problem description. serco is a driver whose write function dispatches
> > to the serial controller. sertest is a user-mode app that writes n bytes
> > to the serial console using the serco driver.
> >
> > While investigating a bug in the RHEL kernel, I noticed that the serial
> > console throughput is way below the configured speed of 115200 bps in
> > a HP Proliant DL380 Gen9. I was expecting something above 10KB/s, but
> > I got 2.5KB/s.
> >
> > $ time ./sertest -n 2500 /tmp/serco
> >
> > real 0m0.997s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.997s
> >
> > With the help of the function tracer, I then noticed the serial
> > controller was taking around 410us seconds to dispatch one single byte:
> >
> > $ trace-cmd record -p function_graph -g serial8250_console_write \
> > ./sertest -n 1 /tmp/serco
> >
> > $ trace-cmd report
> >
> > | serial8250_console_write() {
> > 0.384 us | _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > 1.836 us | io_serial_in();
> > 1.667 us | io_serial_out();
> > | uart_console_write() {
> > | serial8250_console_putchar() {
> > | wait_for_xmitr() {
> > 1.870 us | io_serial_in();
> > 2.238 us | }
> > 1.737 us | io_serial_out();
> > 4.318 us | }
> > 4.675 us | }
> > | wait_for_xmitr() {
> > 1.635 us | io_serial_in();
> > | __const_udelay() {
> > 1.125 us | delay_tsc();
> > 1.429 us | }
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...
> > 1.683 us | io_serial_in();
> > | __const_udelay() {
> > 1.248 us | delay_tsc();
> > 1.486 us | }
> > 1.671 us | io_serial_in();
> > 411.342 us | }
> >
> > In another machine, I measured a throughput of 11.5KB/s, with the serial
> > controller taking between 80-90us to send each byte. That matches the
> > expected throughput for a configuration of 115200 bps.
> >
> > This patch changes the serial8250_console_write to use the 16550 fifo
> > if available. In my benchmarks I got around 25% improvement in the slow
> > machine, and no performance penalty in the fast machine.
>
> ...
>
> > + use_fifo = (up->capabilities & UART_CAP_FIFO) &&
> > + /*
> > + * BCM283x requires to check the fifo
> > + * after each byte.
> > + */
> > + !(up->capabilities & UART_CAP_MINI) &&
>
> Perhaps you need to also comment why we are using tx_loadsz and not fifosize.
>
Maybe it is better to document their difference in the struct
declaration and not in a random usage.
[snip]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 10:27:30AM -0300, Wander Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:32 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:46:42PM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
...
> > > + use_fifo = (up->capabilities & UART_CAP_FIFO) &&
> > > + /*
> > > + * BCM283x requires to check the fifo
> > > + * after each byte.
> > > + */
> > > + !(up->capabilities & UART_CAP_MINI) &&
> >
> > Perhaps you need to also comment why we are using tx_loadsz and not fifosize.
>
> Maybe it is better to document their difference in the struct
> declaration and not in a random usage.
Here, when one reads a code (as a non-familiar with the area), the use of
tx_loadsz confuses if one saw previously fifosize used somewhere. So, I agree
that it's good to document in the structure, but here it's also good to have
a comment to briefly hint the reader why this and not the other one is used.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko