mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: micky <micky_ching@realsil.com.cn>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Chris Ball <chris@printf.net>,
	<devel@linuxdriverproject.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Roger <rogerable@realtek.com>, Wei WANG <wei_wang@realsil.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: rtsx: add support for async request
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:17:19 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53A0E89F.9010006@realsil.com.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqK8mLGc82FfEoxdHG7mioX7JmtFDO=18XZRkwQ4ykU2g@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/17/2014 03:45 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 17 June 2014 03:04, micky <micky_ching@realsil.com.cn> wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 08:40 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 16 June 2014 11:09, micky <micky_ching@realsil.com.cn> wrote:
>>>> On 06/16/2014 04:42 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -36,7 +37,10 @@ struct realtek_pci_sdmmc {
>>>>>>>           struct rtsx_pcr         *pcr;
>>>>>>>           struct mmc_host         *mmc;
>>>>>>>           struct mmc_request      *mrq;
>>>>>>> +       struct workqueue_struct *workq;
>>>>>>> +#define SDMMC_WORKQ_NAME       "rtsx_pci_sdmmc_workq"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +       struct work_struct      work;
>>>>> I am trying to understand why you need a work/workqueue to implement
>>>>> this feature. Is that really the case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate on the reasons?
>>>> Hi Uffe,
>>>>
>>>> we need return as fast as possible in mmc_host_ops request(ops->request)
>>>> callback,
>>>> so the mmc core can continue handle next request.
>>>> when next request everything is ready, it will wait previous done(if not
>>>> done),
>>>> then call ops->request().
>>>>
>>>> we can't use atomic context, because we use mutex_lock() to protect
>>> ops->request should never executed in atomic context. Is that your
>>> concern?
>> Yes.
> Okay. Unless I missed your point, I don't think you need the work/workqueue.
any other method?
>
> Because, ops->request isn't ever executed in atomic context. That's
> due to the mmc core, which handles the async mechanism, are waiting
> for a completion variable in process context, before it invokes the
> ops->request() callback.
>
> That completion variable will be kicked, from your host driver, when
> you invoke mmc_request_done(), .
Sorry, I don't understand here, how kicked?

I think the flow is:
- not wait for first req
- init mrq->done
- ops->request()                         ---         A.rtsx: start queue 
work.
- continue fetch next req
- prepare next req ok,
- wait previous done.                --- B.(mmc_request_done() may be 
called at any time from A to B)
- init mrq->done
- ops->request()                         ---         C.rtsx: start queue 
next work.
...
and seems no problem.

Best Regards.
micky.
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
>>>
>>>> resource, and we have to hold the lock during handle request.
>>>> So I use workq, we just queue a work and return in ops->request(),
>>>> The mmc core can continue without blocking at ops->request().
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards.
>>>> micky.
>>> Kind regards
>>> Uffe
>>> .
>>>
> .
>


  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-18  1:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-06  7:05 [PATCH 0/2] " micky_ching
2014-06-06  7:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] mfd: rtsx: add dma transfer function micky_ching
2014-06-16 12:20   ` Lee Jones
2014-06-16 14:24     ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-18  8:00       ` Lee Jones
2014-07-02  9:14         ` micky
2014-07-02 12:15           ` Lee Jones
2014-06-17  1:08     ` micky
2014-06-06  7:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] mmc: rtsx: add support for async request micky_ching
2014-06-16  8:42   ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-16  8:51     ` Arend van Spriel
2014-06-16  9:09     ` micky
2014-06-16 12:40       ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-17  1:04         ` micky
2014-06-17  7:45           ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-18  1:17             ` micky [this message]
2014-06-18  7:39               ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-18 10:08                 ` micky
2014-06-18 11:03                   ` Ulf Hansson
2014-06-19  1:57                     ` micky
2014-06-23  9:26                       ` micky
2014-07-02  8:53   ` Ulf Hansson
2014-07-18  7:28 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Lee Jones

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53A0E89F.9010006@realsil.com.cn \
    --to=micky_ching@realsil.com.cn \
    --cc=chris@printf.net \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=devel@linuxdriverproject.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rogerable@realtek.com \
    --cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=wei_wang@realsil.com.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome