Hi Bin,
On 1 September 2015 at 04:29, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 31 August 2015 at 21:04, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 31 August 2015 at 19:40, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 31 August 2015 at 08:04, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: >>> Hi Bin, >>> >>> On 31 August 2015 at 07:43, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: >>>>> Hi Bin, >>>>> >>>>> On 31 August 2015 at 03:52, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Boot time performance degradation is observed with the conversion >>>>>> to use dm pci. Intel Quark SoC has a low end x86 processor with >>>>>> only 400MHz frequency and the most time consuming part is with MRC. >>>>>> Each MRC register programming requires indirect access via pci bus. >>>>>> With dm pci, accessing pci configuration space has some overhead. >>>>>> Unfortunately this single access overhead gets accumulated in the >>>>>> whole MRC process, and finally leads to twice boot time (25 seconds) >>>>>> than before (12 seconds). >>>>>> >>>>>> To speed up the boot, create an optimized version of pci config >>>>>> read/write routines without bothering to go through driver model. >>>>>> Now it only takes about 3 seconds to finish MRC, which is really >>>>>> fast (8 times faster than dm pci, or 4 times faster than before). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/quark/msg_port.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> Before I delve into the patch - with driver model we are using the I/O >>>>> method - see pci_x86_read_config(). Is that the source of the slowdown >>>>> or is it just general driver model overhead. >>>> >>>> The MRC calls APIs in arch/x86/cpu/quark/msg_port.c to program DDR >>>> controller. Inside msg_port.c, pci_write_config_dword() and >>>> pci_read_config_dword() are called. >>>> >>>> With driver model, the overhead is: >>>> >>>> pci_write_config_dword() -> pci_write_config32() -> pci_write_config() >>>> -> uclass_get_device_by_seq() then pci_bus_write_config() will finally >>>> call pci_x86_read_config(). >>>> >>>> Without driver model, there is still some overhead (so previously the >>>> MRC time was about 12 seconds) >>>> >>>> pci_write_config_dword() -> pci_hose_write_config_dword() -> >>>> TYPE1_PCI_OP(write, dword, u32, outl, 0) >>>> >>>> With my optimized version, pci_write_config_dword() directly calls a >>>> hardcoded dword size pci config access, without the need to consider >>>> offset and mask, and dereferencing hose->cfg_addr/cfg->data. >>> >>> What about if we use dm_pci_read_config32()? We should try to move PCI >>> access to driver model to avoid the uclass_get_device_by_seq() >>> everywhere. >> >> I don't think that helps. dm_pci_read_config32() requires a dm driver. >> MRC is just something that program a bunch of registers with pci >> config rw call. > > My question is really what takes the time? It's not clear whether it > is the driver model overhead or something else. The code you add in > qrk_pci_write_config_dword() looks very similar to > pci_x86_read_config(). >
It is the driver model overhead. In order to get to pci_x86_read_config(), we need go through a bunch of function calls (see above). Yes, my version is very similar to pci_x86_read_config(), but my version is more simpler as it only needs to deal with dword size thus no need to do offset mask and switch/case. If you look at the Quark MRC codes, there are thousands of calls to msg_port_read() and msg_port_write().
>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the former then perhaps we should change this. If the latter then >>>>> we have work to do... >>>>> >> >> Also for this patch, I just realized that not only it helps to reduce >> the boot time, but also it helps to support PCIe root port in future >> patches. >> >> By checking the Quark SoC manual, I found something that needs to be >> done to get the two PCIe root ports on Quark SoC to work. In order to >> get PCIe root ports show up in the PCI configuration space, we need >> program some registers in the message bus (using APIs in >> arch/x86/cpu/quark/msg_port.c). With driver model, if we still call >> pci_write_config_dword() in the msg_port.c, we end up triggering PCI >> enumeration process first before we actually write something to the >> configuration space, however the enumeration process will hang when >> scanning to the PCIe root port if we don't properly initialize the >> message bus registers. This is a chicken-egg problem. > > Sure, although I see that as a separate problem. >
Yes, it is a separate problem. It came to me when I was reading the manual after I submitted the patch.
> We can't have a driver model implementation that is really slow, so > I'd like to clear that up first. Of course your patch makes sense for > other reasons, but I don't want to play whack-a-mole here. >
Agreed. So far the driver model PCI is used on x86 boards and sandbox. The performance issue was not obvious on these targets, but it is quite noticeable on Intel Quark. These PCI config read/write routines will go through lots of function calls before we actually touch the I/O ports 0xcf8 and 0xcfc, especially when the device is not on the root bus (it needs to go through its parent followed by its parent's parent).
But anyway I think this optimization for Quark is needed. I doubt we can optimize driver model pci to such an extent.
Can we use this as an opportunity to try a few things? If we use the dm_pci functions that should cut out some overhead. Can you try an experiment to see how much difference it makes?
dm_pci_read_config32()
We can't use this API as MRC is not a dm driver.
OK, probably I need to dig in and understand this a little better. Is it running pre-relocation with the early PCI stuff? We could make a driver with UCLASS_RAM perhaps.
Yes, it is running pre-relocation with the early PCI stuff. But I doubt the need to create a UCLASS_RAM for x86 targets as most x86 targets uses FSP to initialize the RAM. The best candidate to implement UCLASS_RAM that I can think of now is the Freescale DDR controller driver on powerpc, and on ARM recently. It supports both SPD and memory-down. On ARM, most RAM targets' DDR initialization is memory-down I believe.
Some updates today when trying to support PCIe root ports in the v2:
I moved qrk_pci_write_config_dword() and qrk_pci_read_config_dword() from msg_port.c to quark.c and update all codes in quark.c to call these two routines to avoid the chicken & egg problem. With this change, I noticed that the MRC execution time changed from 3 seconds to 4 seconds. So 1 additional second is needed. I disassembled u-boot and found in v1 since qrk_pci_write_config_dword() and qrk_pci_read_config_dword() are declared static in msg_port.c, they are inlined by the compiler into these APIs in msg_port.c. But with v2 changes, they are no longer inline but normal function call, which causes this additional 1 second.
So even inline makes some improvement for MRC, not to mention if we can avoid these multiple call chains in the driver model PCI APIs.
OK so at this point I think we should give up and go with your original code. I hope that in future we can figure out a way to make this more efficient, but for now, let's run with it.
Regards, Simon