On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 01:39 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Oliver Neukum <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 21:24 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >> Oliver Neukum <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 18:59 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >> >> Bjørn Mork <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The driver enforces a strict one-to-one relationship between the
> >> >> > received RESPONSE_AVAILABLE notifications and messages read from
> >> >> > the device. At the same time, it will cancel the interrupt URB
> >> >> > when there is no client holding the character device open.
> >> >>
> >> >> Never mind. Forget it.
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch breaks other devices again. The immediate and unconditional
> >> >> reading make them barf. I guess it can be worked around by delaying the
> >> >> flushing until at least one notification is received, but I obviously
> >> >> have to test this theory thoroughly on all devices I have.
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I think the best approach would be to keep the interrupt URB always
> >> > active. I didn't do this to conserve bandwidth, but if it makes devices
> >> > work, it certainly would be the best option.
> >>
> >> Yes, I considered that. But this implies purging the device message
> >> queue without telling userspace that we did so. At least with the
> >> current driver design, which is based on a single limited size
> >> buffer. If the device queues a number of unsolictied messages between
> >> two userspace requests, then we really want all those unsolicted
> >> messages delivered to the userspace program on the second request.
> >
> > You might argue that if user space wants the data it should open the
> > device.
>
> Maybe. It's a variant of the current situation, where userspace must
> not close the device while a session is in progress.
>
> The issue here is that userspace (and the driver) knows nothing about
> what kind of messages the device decides to send, or when. So how can
> userspace know that it wants the data? It can't. It has to keep the
> device open just in case there is something interesting happening.
Data is produced. If it is not processed, it must eventually be dropped.
The only question is how soon.
>
> This is not the kind of semantics I'd like to present to any userspace
> developer. We present a character device as an abstraction of a
> hardware device. I believe a reasonable assumption from a userspace
> developer is that the driver forwards all messages it reads from the
> hardware to the character device. So either we don't read from hardware
> when the character device is closed, or we cache everything we read
> until the character device is open.
Well, no, we cannot meet such guarantee unless we have flow control.
Why would it matter whether the kernel or the device drop data?
>
> >> And I do think the original bandwidth (and power) conservative approach
> >> is worth keeping too. There is no point in waking up these devices
> >> unless there actually is an interested userspace application.
> >
> > They can sleep just fine. I did not imply that runtime PM should
> > be disabled.
>
> Yes, which means that we cancel the URBs.. I haven't been able to
> reproduce it yet, but I think we might occasionally miss a notification
> during suspend/resume too. But this is timing sensitive, and device
> timing sensitive, so it's difficult to trigger on purpose.
System or runtime resume? Possibly we should just request a response
when we resume.
> For now I've ignored it. But I wouldn't be surprised if we end up
> having to do the same "flush queue" excercise on every resume too.
Yes.
> >> FWIW, my initial analysis of the problem with the patch was too quick
> >> imprecise. The problem is simply the -EPIPE status we inevitably will
> >> hit when the queue is empty, as I should have anticipated. It will be
> >> returned to userspace translated to -EIO. I am currently testing a
> >> version taking care of that, and it seems to behave well so far. I'll
> >> submit it as soon as I am absoltely sure that it works on all WDM, QMI
> >> and MBIM devices I have. Might take some time, since I am running out
> >> of mini-PCIe and m.2 adapters..
> >
> > That looks a bit risky. Firstly, if you get -EPIPE after a notification
> > it is an error and must be reported as such, so you need an additional
> > state.
>
> Yes, -EPIPE should be reported if it occurs later when polling after a
> notification. But no additional state is needed. That info is already
> available.
>
> > And what do you do after -EPIPE? Do you clean up the stall
> > or not? And the fun really starts if you get a notification while
> > you clean the stall.
>
> No cleanup necessary/possible AFAICS: This is endpoint 0.
True. But they shouldn't stall in the first place.
This is a rathole.
>
> > And are you sure all devices can cope with an unsolicited request?
>
> Nope. I am not sure about anything when it comes to USB device firmware
> ;)
>
> Broad testing is definitely necessary. But realistically: How can it
> possibly fail in other ways than returning 0 data bytes or stalling?
>
> Wait... Don't answer that. Yes, I know. Some device will do something
> completely wild. I'm just not sure that it is worth caring about...
AS far as we can maintain a sensible behavior with a black list
I agree.
> The firmware shall send ResponseAvailable notifications periodically,
> using any appropriate algorithm, to inform the host that there is data
> available in the reply buffer. The firmware is allowed to send
> ResponseAvailable notifications even if there is no data available,
> but this will obviously reduce overall performance."
That was the original reason to depend on the noitifications.
> It remains to see if there are any devices which cannot cope with an
> unexpected GetEncapsulatedResponse.
As long as they can be somehow dealt with, I am open to all
suggestions.
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
