On Thu, 2013-10-17 at 22:02 -0500, Wang Dongsheng-B40534 wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:46 PM
> > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534; Wood Scott-B07421
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20 state and
> > altivec idle
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wang Dongsheng-B40534
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:22 AM
> > > > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20 state
> > > > > and altivec idle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:20 AM
> > > > > > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20
> > > > > > state and altivec idle
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Wang Dongsheng-B40534
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:16 AM
> > > > > > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20
> > > > > > > state and altivec idle
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:01 AM
> > > > > > > > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20
> > > > > > > > state and altivec idle
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Wang Dongsheng-B40534
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 2:51 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > > > > > Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> > > > > > > > > Wang
> > > > > > > > Dongsheng-B40534
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/85xx: add sysfs for pw20
> > > > > > > > > state and
> > > > > > > > altivec idle
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Wang Dongsheng <dongsheng.w...@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Add a sys interface to enable/diable pw20 state or altivec
> > > > > > > > > idle, and
> > > > > > > > control the
> > > > > > > > > wait entry time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Enable/Disable interface:
> > > > > > > > > 0, disable. 1, enable.
> > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/pw20_state
> > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/altivec_idle
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Set wait time interface:(Nanosecond)
> > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/pw20_wait_time
> > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/altivec_idle_wait_time
> > > > > > > > > Example: Base on TBfreq is 41MHZ.
> > > > > > > > > 1~48(ns): TB[63]
> > > > > > > > > 49~97(ns): TB[62]
> > > > > > > > > 98~195(ns): TB[61]
> > > > > > > > > 196~390(ns): TB[60]
> > > > > > > > > 391~780(ns): TB[59]
> > > > > > > > > 781~1560(ns): TB[58]
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Dongsheng
> > > > > > > > > <dongsheng.w...@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > *v5:
> > > > > > > > > Change get_idle_ticks_bit function implementation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *v4:
> > > > > > > > > Move code from 85xx/common.c to kernel/sysfs.c.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remove has_pw20_altivec_idle function.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Change wait "entry_bit" to wait time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > > > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > > > > > > > index
> > > > > > > > > 27a90b9..10d1128 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -85,6 +85,284 @@ __setup("smt-snooze-delay=",
> > > > > > > > setup_smt_snooze_delay);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_PPC64 */
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_SOC
> > > > > > > > > +#define MAX_BIT 63
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static u64 pw20_wt;
> > > > > > > > > +static u64 altivec_idle_wt;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int get_idle_ticks_bit(u64 ns) {
> > > > > > > > > + u64 cycle;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (ns >= 10000)
> > > > > > > > > + cycle = div_u64(ns + 500, 1000) *
> > tb_ticks_per_usec;
> > > > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > > > + cycle = div_u64(ns * tb_ticks_per_usec, 1000);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (!cycle)
> > > > > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + return ilog2(cycle);
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static void do_show_pwrmgtcr0(void *val) {
> > > > > > > > > + u32 *value = val;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + *value = mfspr(SPRN_PWRMGTCR0); }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static ssize_t show_pw20_state(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > > > > > > char
> > *buf) {
> > > > > > > > > + u32 value;
> > > > > > > > > + unsigned int cpu = dev->id;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, do_show_pwrmgtcr0, &value,
> > > > > > > > > +1);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + value &= PWRMGTCR0_PW20_WAIT;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", value ? 1 : 0); }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static void do_store_pw20_state(void *val) {
> > > > > > > > > + u32 *value = val;
> > > > > > > > > + u32 pw20_state;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + pw20_state = mfspr(SPRN_PWRMGTCR0);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (*value)
> > > > > > > > > + pw20_state |= PWRMGTCR0_PW20_WAIT;
> > > > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > > > + pw20_state &= ~PWRMGTCR0_PW20_WAIT;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + mtspr(SPRN_PWRMGTCR0, pw20_state); }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static ssize_t store_pw20_state(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > > > > > > + const char *buf, size_t count) {
> > > > > > > > > + u32 value;
> > > > > > > > > + unsigned int cpu = dev->id;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (kstrtou32(buf, 0, &value))
> > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (value > 1)
> > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, do_store_pw20_state,
> > > > > > > > > +&value, 1);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + return count;
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +static ssize_t show_pw20_wait_time(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > > > > > > char
> > *buf) {
> > > > > > > > > + u32 value;
> > > > > > > > > + u64 tb_cycle;
> > > > > > > > > + s64 time;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + unsigned int cpu = dev->id;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (!pw20_wt) {
> > > > > > > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, do_show_pwrmgtcr0,
> > > > > > > > > +&value,
> > > > > > 1);
> > > > > > > > > + value = (value & PWRMGTCR0_PW20_ENT) >>
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > PWRMGTCR0_PW20_ENT_SHIFT;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + tb_cycle = (1 << (MAX_BIT - value)) * 2;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is value = 0 and value = 1 legal? These will make tb_cycle =
> > > > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + time = div_u64(tb_cycle * 1000,
> > > > > > > > > tb_ticks_per_usec)
> > - 1;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And time = -1;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please look at the end of the function, :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "return sprintf(buf, "%llu\n", time > 0 ? time : 0);"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know you return 0 if value = 0/1, my question was that, is
> > > > > > this correct as per specification?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ahh, also for "value" upto 7 you will return 0, no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > If value = 0, MAX_BIT - value = 63 tb_cycle = 0xffffffff_ffffffff,
> > > > > tb_cycle * 1000 will overflow, but this situation is not possible.
> > > > > Because if the "value = 0" means this feature will be "disable".
> > > > > Now The default wait bit is 50(MAX_BIT - value, value = 13), the
> > > > > PW20/Altivec Idle wait entry time is about 1ms, this time is very
> > > > > long for wait idle time, and it's cannot be increased(means
> > > > > (MAX_BIT
> > > > > - value)
> > > > cannot greater than 50).
> > > >
> > > > What you said is not obvious from code and so at least write a
> > > > comment that value will be always >= 13 or value will never be less
> > > > than < 8 and below calculation will not overflow. may be error out
> > > > if value is less than 8.
> > > >
> > > The "value" less than 10, this will overflow.
> > > There is not error, The code I knew it could not be less than 10,
> > > that's why I use the following code. :)
> >
> > I am sorry to persist but this is not about what you know, this is about
> > how code is read and code does not say what you know, so add a comment at
> > least and error out/warn when "value" is less than a certain number.
> >
> Sorry for the late to response the mail. If it caused confusion, we can add a
> comment.
>
> How about the following comment?
> /*
> * If the "value" less than 10, this will overflow.
> * From benchmark test, the default wait bit will not be set less than 10bit.
> * Because 10 bit corresponds to the wait entry time is
> 439375573401999609(ns),
> * for wait-entry-idle time this value looks too long, and we cannot use those
> * "long" time as a default wait-entry time. So overflow could not have
> happened
> * and we use this calculation method to get wait-entry-idle time.
> */
If there's to be a limit on the times we accept, make it explicit.
Check for it before doing any conversions, and return an error if
userspace tries to set it.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
