On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:33:57PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 27/04/17 12:13, sunil.kovv...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Sunil Goutham <sgout...@cavium.com> > > > > Modified polling on CMDQ consumer similar to how polling is done for TLB > > SYNC > > completion in SMMUv2 driver. Code changes are done with reference to > > > > 8513c8930069 iommu/arm-smmu: Poll for TLB sync completion more effectively > > > > Poll timeout has been increased which addresses issue of 100us timeout not > > sufficient, when command queue is full with TLB invalidation commands. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil Goutham <sgout...@cavium.com> > > Signed-off-by: Geetha <gak...@cavium.com> > > --- > > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > > index d412bdd..34599d4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > > @@ -379,6 +379,9 @@ > > #define CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_NONE (0UL << CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SHIFT) > > #define CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV (2UL << CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SHIFT) > > > > +#define CMDQ_DRAIN_TIMEOUT_US 1000 > > +#define CMDQ_SPIN_COUNT 10 > > + > > /* Event queue */ > > #define EVTQ_ENT_DWORDS 4 > > #define EVTQ_MAX_SZ_SHIFT 7 > > @@ -737,7 +740,8 @@ static void queue_inc_prod(struct arm_smmu_queue *q) > > */ > > static int queue_poll_cons(struct arm_smmu_queue *q, bool drain, bool wfe) > > { > > - ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), ARM_SMMU_POLL_TIMEOUT_US); > > + ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), CMDQ_DRAIN_TIMEOUT_US); > > + unsigned int spin_cnt, delay = 1; > > > > while (queue_sync_cons(q), (drain ? !queue_empty(q) : queue_full(q))) { > > if (ktime_compare(ktime_get(), timeout) > 0) > > @@ -746,8 +750,13 @@ static int queue_poll_cons(struct arm_smmu_queue *q, > > bool drain, bool wfe) > > if (wfe) { > > wfe(); > > } else { > > - cpu_relax(); > > - udelay(1); > > + for (spin_cnt = 0; > > + spin_cnt < CMDQ_SPIN_COUNT; spin_cnt++) { > > + cpu_relax(); > > + continue; > > + } > > + udelay(delay); > > + delay *= 2; > > Sorry, I can't make sense of this. The referenced commit uses the spin > loop to poll opportunistically a few times before delaying. This loop > just adds a short open-coded udelay to an exponential udelay, and it's > not really clear that that's any better than a fixed udelay (especially > as the two cases in which we poll are somewhat different). > > What's wrong with simply increasing the timeout value alone?
I asked that the timeout is only increased for the drain case, and that we fix the issue here where we udelat if cons didn't move immediately: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-April/503389.html but I don't think the patch above actually achieves any of that. Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu