Am 31.07.2012 03:06, schrieb Benoît Thébaudeau:
Dear Marek Vasut,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:38:54 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[...]
Can you explain where this gain would come from? In both cases, the data in USB transfers would be organized in the same way, and it would be accessed in memory also in the same way (regarding bursts). The only difference would be the fetch time of a little bit more qTDs, which is extremely fast and insignificant compared to the transfer time of the payload, which remains unchanged.
You are right, the speed different will be minimal, only the memory usage will be lower.
If your point is only the memory gain, I agree. With your suggestion, there are roughly 25% less qTDs used in the "(max wMaxPacketSize)-aligned but not page-aligned" case since the number of qTDs is about (total transfer size) / 5 instead of (total transfer size) / 4. But this is still small compared to usual heap sizes (at least on the kind of hardware I use).
Ok, I see the point. I understand it's not really a bug, just an improvement.
Exactly.
Maybe we can do a subsequent patch on top of these from Benoit and see how it fares?
If you wish. I'll do that.
Moreover, in your use case, if you are e.g. using FAT, on the one hand, the buffers in fat.c are never aligned to more than the DMA min alignment, and on the other hand, if you can align your user buffers to 512 bytes, you can also align them directly to 4 kB.
The user buffer is aligned to 4kB, but this doesn't matter as a file load from a storage device (ex. fatload) can be segmented in partial USB transfers. This can lead to any block aligned buffer for a partial transfer.
What do you mean by "partial USB transfers"? As seen from EHCI users like the MSC driver (usb_storage.c), USB transfers either succeed or fail, but they cannot be "segmented".
Segmented -- like multiple transfers being issues with small payload?
Right.
You can not put these together at the USB-level, since it's the issuing code that has to be fixed.
If the segmentation comes from the file system handling we can not avoid this.
On its side, the MSC driver will only segment the FAT layer requests if they are larger than 65535 blocks, so still not what you describe.
As to the FAT stack, it will only read whole clusters while accessing file payload, and the most usual cluster sizes are by default a multiple of 4 kiB (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365).
512b is minimum and it's quite often used.
OK.
In my example I use a FAT partition with 128 MB and 1 KB clusters. The file is read in two segments in which the first transfer starts 4 kB aligned but stops 1 kB aligned but not 4 kB aligned and leads to unaligned second transfer.
So I don't see "segmentation" anywhere, and for usual cluster sizes, the EHCI buffer alignment is fully determined by the applicative buffer alignment and the file position corresponding to the beginning of the applicative buffer. But there are indeed some unusual use cases (e.g. smaller clusters) for which only a block-aligned buffer will reach EHCI despite a page-aligned applicative buffer.
I don't quite get this one.
I meant that 512 bytes (most usual storage block size) is what we should aim at to optimize the number of qTDs.
Right.
My suggestion would be to truncate the xfr_bytes with the max wMaxPacketSize (1024) and for the qtd_count use:
if ((uint32_t)buffer & 1023) /* wMaxPacketSize unaligned */
qtd_count += DIV_ROUND_UP(((uint32_t)buffer & 4095) + length, (QT_BUFFER_CNT - 1) * 4096);else /* wMaxPacketSize aligned */
qtd_count += DIV_ROUND_UP(((uint32_t)buffer & 4095) + length, QT_BUFFER_CNT * 4096);This allows 50% of unaligned block data (512) to be transferred with min qTDs.
That would also require a realignment-to-page stage. This is specific code for specific buffer alignment from the upper layers. We could also skip the realignment to page and always keep the same qTD transfer size except for the last one, by adding as many packets as possible for the buffer alignment.
What you mean by realignment-to-page stage?
I mean that the alignment of the transfer to 1024 instead of 4096 can make the first qTD transfer larger than the following ones, which guarantees that the following qTD transfers are page-aligned, even if the first one was only aligned to 1024. For the 1024-aligned case, this results in the change that you suggest, but it also changes things for the unaligned case, which makes this part of the code inaccurate. See below.
You are right. It maximise the first transfer. All other transfers are 5 * 4 KB (aligned) or 4 * 4 KB (unaligned) long.
But I still don't see a significant reason to complicate code to do that.
I don't understand where you expect to complicate the code.
You limit the size of one transfer (xfr_bytes) to (QT_BUFFER_CNT
4kB for unaligned buffers. But you only need to limit it to a multiple of the maximal possible wMaxPacketSize (1kB) to make sure that you always send full packages.
I only suggest to replace the causeless 4kB alignment with a reasonable 1kB alignment and adapte the qtd_count caluclation.
int xfr_bytes = min(left_length, (QT_BUFFER_CNT * 4096 - ((uint32_t)buf_ptr & 4095)) &
~4095);
~1023);I agree for this part of the code. But for the allocation part, your suggestion is already a little bit more complicated than my original code, while still incomplete. Besides that, the "((uint32_t)buffer & 4095) +" for the page-unaligned case in my code was actually useless, which emphasizes the difference, even if it's a light complication.
For the allocation part, the appropriate code for your suggestion would be:
if ((uint32_t)buffer & 1023) /* max-wMaxPacketSize-unaligned */ qtd_count +=DIV_ROUND_UP( max( length > 0, length - (4096 - ((uint32_t)buf_ptr & 4095) & ~1023) ), (QT_BUFFER_CNT - 1) * 4096 );
Ok, I now think I understand what's going on here. I still have to wonder how much would the compiler optimize of this if you "decompressed" your code -- to make it more easy to understand.
I wouldn't go for this complicated version since it's not really useful compared to the simpler yet less accurate solution I gave below.
You are right, but your complicate code only saves one qTD.
else /* max-wMaxPacketSize-aligned */ qtd_count += DIV_ROUND_UP(((uint32_t)buffer & 4095) + length, QT_BUFFER_CNT * 4096);This code allocates exactly the required number of qTDs, no less, no more. It's clearly more complicated than the 4096 version.
A test should also be added to make sure that qtd_count is never 0. Otherwise, ZLPs are broken (this applies to my original code too).
If we want to compromise accuracy for simplicity, we can change that to:
qtd_count += 2 + length / ((QT_BUFFER_CNT - !!((uint32_t)buffer & 1023)) * 4096);It's this solution I'd like to use to optimize the number of qTDs (with 1023 or something else).
This sounds reasonable.
This code allocates enough qTDs for all cases, with at worst 2 extra qTDs (i.e. a total of 128 bytes) that will be left unused. It also handles intrinsically ZLPs.
Now, let's consider the possible values of wMaxPacketSize:
- control endpoints:
- LS: 8,
- FS: 8, 16, 32 or 64,
- HS: 64,
- isochronous endpoints: not supported by ehci-hcd.c,
- interrupt endpoints:
- LS: <= 8,
- FS: <= 64,
- HS: <= 1024 (1x to 3x for high-bandwidth),
- bulk endpoints:
- LS: N/A,
- FS: 8, 16, 32 or 64,
- HS: 512.
My code assumes that wMaxPacketSize is a power of 2. This is not always true for interrupt endpoints. Let's talk about these. Their handling is currently broken in U-Boot since their transfers are made asynchronous instead of periodic. Devices shouldn't care too much about that, as long as transfers do not exceed wMaxPacketSize, in which case my code still works because wMaxPacketSize always fits in a single qTD. Interrupt transfers larger than wMaxPacketSize do not seem to be used by U-Boot. If they were used, the current code in U-Boot would have a timing issue because the asynchronous scheme would break the interval requested by devices, which could at worst make them fail in some way. So the only solution would be that such transfers be split by the caller of submit_int_msg, in which case my code still works. What would you think about failing with an error message in submit_int_msg if length is larger than wMaxPacketSize? Marek, what do you think?
Let's do that ... I think the interrupt endpoint is only used for keyboard and if someone needs it for something else, the code will be there, just needing improvement. Comment and error message are OK.
OK. I have thought of another solution for this. You'll tell me which one you prefer.
The ehci_submit_async code currently in U-Boot checks through ehci_td_buffer that length fits in the single qTD reserved for data payload only after work has begun, possibly after a SETUP transfer. With my series, this is checked at the very beginning, before the allocation. We could detect that wMaxPacketSize is not a power of 2 (e.g. with __builtin_popcount), in which case the allocation for the data payload would be restricted to 1 qTD like now, and there would be a check at the very beginning to test if length fits in this qTD. In that way, there could be several packets per interrupt transfer as long as it fits in a single qTD, just like now, contrary to the limitation imposed by the error in submit_int_msg. But I'm not sure it's a good idea to allow this behavior.
I think this is not needed, as there is only one user (keyboard) with max size of 8 byte.
For all other cases, wMaxPacketSize is a power of 2, so everything is fine, except that in those cases wMaxPacketSize is at most 512, which means that with the suggested limitation applied to submit_int_msg, your suggested 1024 could be replaced with 512, which is good news since this is also the most common storage sector size.
We could even use usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe) instead of 512, with some restrictions. If we don't want to alter the misalignment check in ehci_td_buffer, max(usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe), ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN) would actually have to be used. This misalignment check could be limited to the first qTD transfer of a USB transfer, but that would complicate things, all the more the corresponding call to flush_dcache_range would have to be modified to fix alignments.
So we have to make two choices:
- between 4096, 1024, 512 and max(usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe),
ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN), - between the accurate and simple allocations. That makes a total of 8 working possibilities. What do you guys think we should choose? On my side, I like max(usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe), ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN)
Won't maxpacket fall below 512 on occasions,
Sure.
I would go with 512 as it also the most common storage sector size.
which might cause trouble?
Why?
with the simple allocation. It's efficient as to code speed, size and readability, as well as to RAM usage.
For now, I'd go for the safest, easiest and dumbest solution and see how it fares. Subsequent patch can be submitted to improve that and measurements made.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time; premature optimization is the root of all evil" -- Donald E. Knuth, Structured Programming with go to Statements [...]
OK, so I'll stick to my original series, rework it lightly as we said, add Jim's patch, and add a further patch for these optimizations.
Okay.
So we could perhaps issue a #error in ehci-hcd or in usb_storage if CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN is not large enough, but I don't think it's a good idea because:
- the threshold value would have to depend on runtime block sizes
or something, which could lead to a big worst worst case that would almost never happen in real life, so giving such an unrealistic heap size constraint would be cumbersome,
#warning then?
With which limit if so?
I would expect more than 128kB as this is a common worst case (512 B block size).
- reaching the top sizes would mean reading a huge file or
something to a large buffer (much larger than the qTDs this transfer requires), which would very likely be heap-allocated (except for commands like fatload), so CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN would already have to be large for the application,
- for command line operations like fatload, transfers of
uncontrolled lengths could simply crash U-Boot if they go too far in memory
Why, because they overwrite it?
Yes. U-Boot expands down its allocation during startup, so it's often located at the end of the embedded RAM, which means that fatload will very likely use the beginning of the RAM.
, which means that users of such commands need to know what they are doing anyway, so they have to control transfer sizes,
- there is already a runtime error displayed in case of allocation
failure.
Ok
So #warning or not besides this?
Marek, what do you think?
Had a good evening with the EHCI r10 spec, hope I answered most of your questions.
Yes, thanks.
Regards, Stefan