Re: [PATCH v1] PCI/PM: Switch D3Hot delay to use usleep_range

[William McVicker]

On 08/16/2022, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:17:31PM +0000, William McVicker wrote:
> > On 08/16/2022, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 06:40:01PM +0000, Will McVicker wrote:
> > > > From: Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Since the PCI spec requires a 10ms D3Hot delay (defined by
> > > > PCI_PM_D3HOT_WAIT) and a few of the PCI quirks update the D3Hot delay up
> > > > to 20ms, let's switch from msleep to usleep_range to improve the delay
> > > > accuracy.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch came from Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx> in the Pixel 6
> > > > kernel tree [1]. Testing on a Pixel 6, found that the 10ms delay for
> > > > the Exynos PCIe device was on average delaying for 19ms when the spec
> > > > requires 10ms. Switching from msleep to uslseep_delay therefore
> > > > decreases the resume time on a Pixel 6 on average by 9ms.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/gs/+/18a8cad68d8e6d50f339a716a18295e6d987cee3
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/pci.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > index 95bc329e74c0..5ae5b3c4dc9b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static void pci_dev_d3_sleep(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > >  		delay = pci_pm_d3hot_delay;
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (delay)
> > > > -		msleep(delay);
> > > > +		usleep_range(delay * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> > > > +			     (delay + 2) * USEC_PER_MSEC);
> > > 
> > > You could also use fsleep(), which ends up calling usleep_range()
> > > for (usecs > 10 && usecs <= 20000).
> > 
> > Thanks for the suggestion. I see fsleep() uses 2 * usec for the upper range
> > which I think is a bit much for this optimization. The documentation says
> > in the worse case an interrupt will be triggered for the upper bound, but
> > I'm not entirely sure how often that'd be. Thoughts?
> 
> Ah, I misread 'delay + 2' in your patch as 'delay * 2', which would result in
> the same. Agreed, in the spirit of your optimization it probably doesn't make
> sense to use fsleep().
> 
> The range of 2us is really narroy, you could consider making it something
> like 10 or 20% of 'delay'.

The delay is actually 2ms which is 20% of the default 10ms delay. I took
a look at the PCI quirks again and see delays of 0s, 20ms, and 120ms. Due
to the 120ms delay for Intel, let me add a check to use msleep() when delay
is greather than 20ms. For <20ms, I'll use usleep_range with a 20-25% upper
bound.

Thanks,
Will