Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Poll for CMDQ drain completion more effectively

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 09:24:13PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:49:09PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:43 PM,  <sunil.kovvuri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > From: Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > 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 <sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Geetha <gakula@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> >  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;
> >> >                 }
> >> >         }
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 2.7.4
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sorry for the ignorance.
> >> Is there a patchwork where I can check current status of ARM IOMMU
> >> related patches ?
> >>
> >> And is this patch accepted, if not any comments / feedback ?
> >
> > Please be patient: the merge window is open and it's not been long since you
> > posted the patch, which looks pretty bonkers at first glance.
> >
> > Will
> 
> Look at this
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/3/605
> The same thing, i pinged after a week and you said you already picked it up.
> All I am asking is how do i know the current status, how many days
> would normally
> be considered being patient ?

At least wait until the merge window is over if it's not a fix, or keep an
eye on the relevant branches (see below).

> Instead of troubling you, is there a patchwork where i can check the status ?

No, but I pick patches up on my iommu/devel branch here:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/

and at some point they appear on for-joerg/arm-smmu/updates, which I send
to Joerg (who is the iommu maintainer). He then puts them into linux-next
before they get sent for inclusion in mainline during the next merge window.

Will