Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: rtsx: add support for async request

[Ulf Hansson]

On 18 June 2014 03:17, micky <micky_ching@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 03:45 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> On 17 June 2014 03:04, micky <micky_ching@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/16/2014 08:40 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16 June 2014 11:09, micky <micky_ching@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/16/2014 04:42 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -36,7 +37,10 @@ struct realtek_pci_sdmmc {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           struct rtsx_pcr         *pcr;
>>>>>>>>           struct mmc_host         *mmc;
>>>>>>>>           struct mmc_request      *mrq;
>>>>>>>> +       struct workqueue_struct *workq;
>>>>>>>> +#define SDMMC_WORKQ_NAME       "rtsx_pci_sdmmc_workq"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +       struct work_struct      work;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to understand why you need a work/workqueue to implement
>>>>>> this feature. Is that really the case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you elaborate on the reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Uffe,
>>>>>
>>>>> we need return as fast as possible in mmc_host_ops
>>>>> request(ops->request)
>>>>> callback,
>>>>> so the mmc core can continue handle next request.
>>>>> when next request everything is ready, it will wait previous done(if
>>>>> not
>>>>> done),
>>>>> then call ops->request().
>>>>>
>>>>> we can't use atomic context, because we use mutex_lock() to protect
>>>>
>>>> ops->request should never executed in atomic context. Is that your
>>>> concern?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Okay. Unless I missed your point, I don't think you need the
>> work/workqueue.
>
> any other method?
>
>>
>> Because, ops->request isn't ever executed in atomic context. That's
>> due to the mmc core, which handles the async mechanism, are waiting
>> for a completion variable in process context, before it invokes the
>> ops->request() callback.
>>
>> That completion variable will be kicked, from your host driver, when
>> you invoke mmc_request_done(), .
>
> Sorry, I don't understand here, how kicked?

mmc_request_done()
    ->mrq->done()
        ->mmc_wait_done()
            ->complete(&mrq->completion);

>
> I think the flow is:
> - not wait for first req
> - init mrq->done
> - ops->request()                         ---         A.rtsx: start queue
> work.
> - continue fetch next req
> - prepare next req ok,
> - wait previous done.                --- B.(mmc_request_done() may be called
> at any time from A to B)
> - init mrq->done
> - ops->request()                         ---         C.rtsx: start queue
> next work.
> ...
> and seems no problem.

Right, I don't think there are any _problem_ by using the workqueue as
you have implemented, but I am questioning if it's correct. Simply
because I don't think there are any reasons to why you need a
workqueue, it doesn't solve any problem for you - it just adds
overhead.

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/