Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC] Improving udelay/ndelay on platforms where that is possible
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
CC:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
        Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@sigmadesigns.com>,
        Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>
References: <4b707ce0-6067-ab36-e167-1acf348d26bf@free.fr>
 <CA+55aFxxH0HE9SfUoLVqsvDKO0PfeM+vSoDmbXQv85yJcPZoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e03436d1-b140-3f29-59a6-3b1eb6bf9da4@free.fr>
 <11393e07-b042-180c-3bcd-484bf51eada6@sigmadesigns.com>
 <20171115131351.GE31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
 <1fa81694-7bd2-564b-e5b9-ae53b9ea6620@sigmadesigns.com>
 <20171116153625.GJ31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
 <9a4cfa9d-3940-b7f2-5a4d-59e89af85bb7@sigmadesigns.com>
 <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1711161106240.20817@knanqh.ubzr>
 <48c38055-20f7-e565-aa56-74f360e6e3d9@sigmadesigns.com>
 <20171116163254.GK31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
From:   Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com>
Message-ID: <fc4ce9e1-8c9d-e6bf-30d3-ead2c5518683@sigmadesigns.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:42:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171116163254.GK31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 16/11/2017 17:32, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:26:32PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>> On 16/11/2017 17:08, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2017 16:36, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/11/2017 14:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> udelay() needs to offer a consistent interface so that drivers know
>>>>>>> what to expect no matter what the implementation is.  Making one
>>>>>>> implementation conform to your ideas while leaving the other
>>>>>>> implementations with other expectations is a recipe for bugs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you really want to do this, fix the loops_per_jiffy implementation
>>>>>>> as well so that the consistency is maintained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Russell,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that, when using DFS, there's a serious issue with loop-based
>>>>>> delays. (IIRC, it was you who pointed this out a few years ago.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm reading arch/arm/kernel/smp.c correctly, loops_per_jiffy is scaled
>>>>>> when the frequency changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But arch/arm/lib/delay-loop.S starts by loading the current value of
>>>>>> loops_per_jiffy, computes the number of times to loop, and then loops.
>>>>>> If the frequency increases when the core is in __loop_delay, the
>>>>>> delay will be much shorter than requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this a correct assessment of the situation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely correct, and it's something that people are aware of, and
>>>>> have already catered for while writing their drivers.
>>>>
>>>> In their cpufreq driver?
>>>> In "real" device drivers that happen to use delays?
>>>>
>>>> On my system, the CPU frequency may ramp up from 120 MHz to 1.2 GHz.
>>>> If the frequency increases at the beginning of __loop_delay, udelay(100)
>>>> would spin only 10 microseconds. This is likely to cause issues in
>>>> any driver using udelay.
>>>>
>>>> How does one cater for that?
>>>
>>> You make sure your delays are based on a stable hardware timer.
>>> Most platforms nowadays should have a suitable timer source.
>>
>> So you propose fixing loop-based delays by using clock-based delays,
>> is that correct? (That is indeed what I did on my platform.)
>>
>> Russell stated that there are platforms using loop-based delays with
>> cpufreq enabled. I'm asking how they manage the brokenness.
> 
> Quite simply, they don't have such a wide range of frequencies that can
> be selected.  They're on the order of 4x.  For example, the original
> platform that cpufreq was developed on, a StrongARM-1110 board, can
> practically range from 221MHz down to 59MHz.

Requesting 100 µs and spinning only 25 µs is still a problem,
don't you agree?

> BTW, your example above is incorrect.

A 10x increase in frequency causes a request of 100 µs to spin
only 10 µs, as written above.

The problem is not when the frequency drops -- this makes the
delay longer. The problem is when the frequency increases,
which makes the delay shorter.

Regards.


From 1584252424640235549@xxx Thu Nov 16 19:34:08 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582790467810046578
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread