Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: imx: Add fast path when rs485 delays are 0

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Greg,

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:03:56AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 05:59:46PM +0100, Harald Seiler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 17:21 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Harald Seiler wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 16:11 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Harald Seiler wrote:
> > > > > > Right now, even when `delay_rts_before_send` and `delay_rts_after_send`
> > > > > > are 0, the hrtimer is triggered (with timeout 0) which can introduce a
> > > > > > few 100us of additional overhead on slower i.MX platforms.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Implement a fast path when the delays are 0, where the RTS signal is
> > > > > > toggled immediately instead of going through an hrtimer.  This fast path
> > > > > > behaves identical to the code before delay support was implemented.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Harald Seiler <hws@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> > > > > > index df8a0c8b8b29..67bbbb69229d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> > > > > > @@ -455,9 +455,14 @@ static void imx_uart_stop_tx(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >  	if (port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) {
> > > > > >  		if (sport->tx_state == SEND) {
> > > > > >  			sport->tx_state = WAIT_AFTER_SEND;
> > > > > > -			start_hrtimer_ms(&sport->trigger_stop_tx,
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +			if (port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send > 0) {
> > > > > > +				start_hrtimer_ms(&sport->trigger_stop_tx,
> > > > > >  					 port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send);
> > > > > > -			return;
> > > > > > +				return;
> > > > > > +			}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +			/* continue without any delay */
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is it right to keep the assignment sport->tx_state = WAIT_AFTER_SEND ?
> > > > 
> > > > I am keeping the assignment intentionally, to fall into the
> > > > if(state == WAIT_AFTER_RTS) below (which then sets the state to OFF).
> > > > I originally had the code structured like this:
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send > 0) {
> > > > 		sport->tx_state = WAIT_AFTER_SEND;
> > > > 		start_hrtimer_ms(&sport->trigger_stop_tx,
> > > > 			 port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send);
> > > > 		return;
> > > > 	} else {
> > > > 		/* continue without any delay */
> > > > 		sport->tx_state = WAIT_AFTER_SEND;
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > This is functionally identical, but maybe a bit more explicit.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure what is more clear to read?
> > > 
> > > I didn't oppose to the readability thing. With your patch you skip
> > > starting the stop_tx timer and that would usually care for calling
> > > imx_uart_stop_tx and setting sport->tx_state = OFF. This doesn't happen
> > > with your patch any more.
> > 
> > Not starting the timer is the entire point of the patch - instead, the
> > code which would run inside the timer callback now runs immediately. To
> > do this, I set the tx_state to WAIT_AFTER_SEND and _don't_ do the early
> > return which leads into the if(tx_state == WAIT_AFTER_SEND) below.  This
> > is the code-path which normally runs later in the hrtimer callback.
> > 
> > I suppose it would have been good to provide more context lines in the
> > patch... Here is the relevant bit (in the changed version now):
> > 
> > 	if (sport->tx_state == SEND) {
> > 		sport->tx_state = WAIT_AFTER_SEND;
> > 
> > 		if (port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send > 0) {
> > 			start_hrtimer_ms(&sport->trigger_stop_tx,
> > 				 port->rs485.delay_rts_after_send);
> > 			return;
> > 		}
> > 
> > 		/* continue without any delay */
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	if (sport->tx_state == WAIT_AFTER_RTS ||
> > 	    sport->tx_state == WAIT_AFTER_SEND) {
> > 		/* ... actual rts toggling ... */
> > 
> > 		sport->tx_state = OFF;
> > 	}
> > 
> 
> Uwe, any thoughts about if this patch should be taken or not?

I will take a deeper look later today and tell you my thoughts.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature