linux-kernel - RE: mixing device idle and CPUidle or non-atomic idle notifiers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0680EC522D0CC943BC586913CF3768C003FF0595DD@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:17:08 +0530
From:	"Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@...com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	"linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: mixing device idle and CPUidle or non-atomic idle notifiers

Hi Kevin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-omap-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Hilman
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:15 AM
> To: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Subject: RFC: mixing device idle and CPUidle or non-atomic idle notifiers
> 
> Now that we have runtime PM for devices, I'm exploring ways of how to
> couple the runtime PM of certain devices with CPUidle transitions.
> Ideally, CPUidle should only manage CPU idle states, and device idle
> states would be managed separately using runtime PM.  However, there are
> cases where the device idle transistions need to be coordinated with CPU
> idle transistions.  This is already a proposed topic for the PM
> mini-conf at Plumbers'[1], so this RFC is to get the discussion started.
> 
> In the wild west (before runtime PM), we managed these special cases on
> OMAP by having some special hacks^Whooks for certain drivers that were
> called during idle.  When these devices are converted to using runtime
> PM, ideally we'd like initiate device runtime PM transitions for these
> devices somehow coordinated with CPU idle transitions.
> 
> So, I started to explore how to coordinate device runtime PM transitions
> with CPU idle transitions.
> 
> One of the fundamental problems is that by the time CPUidle is entered,
> interrupts are already disabled, and runtime PM cannot be used from
> interrupts disabled context (c.f. thread on linux-pm[1].)
> 
> So that led me down the path of exploring whether we really need to have
> interrupts disabled during the early part of CPUidle.  It seems to me
> that during the time when the governor is selecting a state, and when
> the platform-specific code is checking for device/bus activity,
> interrupts do not really need to be disabled yet.  At least, I didn't
> come up with a good reason why they need to be disabled so early, hence
> the RFC.

One thing that could go wrong is the governor's state selection.
If you do end up servicing interrupts post the governor's state selection,
and spend considerable amount of time in them, eventually when you do sleep
(When CPUidle is scheduled again) the time available to sleep might be much lesser than
what the governor thought it had, resulting in a wrong sleep state.

regards,
Rajendra

> 
> Here's a simplified version how it works today:
> 
> /* arch/arm/kernel/process.c, arch/x86/kernel/process_*.c */
> cpu_idle()
>     local_irq_disable()
>     pm_idle()  --> cpuidle_idle_call()
> 
> cpuidle_idle_call()
>     dev->prepare()
>     target_state = governor->select()  /* selects next state */
>     target_state->enter()
>         /* the ->enter hook must enable IRQs before returning */
> 
> As a quick hack, I just (re)enabled interrupts in our CPUidle
> ->prepare() hook (they're later disabled again before the core idle is
> run.)  This allowed the calling of device-specific idle functions which
> then use runtime PM and thus allows device-specific idle to be
> coordinated with the CPU idle.
> 
> So back to the main question... do we really need interrupts disabled so
> early in the idle path?
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something obvious about why this can't work, but
> it's Friday and my brain prefers to think about beer rather than
> CPUidle.
> 
> Or, as another potential option...
> 
> I just discovered that x86_64 has an atomic idle_notifier called just
> before idle (c.f. arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c.)  However this is also
> done with interrupts disabled, so using this has the same problems with
> interrupts disabled.  But, what about adding an additional notifier
> chain that happens with interrupts still enabled....  hmm, will
> ponder that over that beer...
> 
> Kevin
> 
> [1] http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2010/ocw/proposals/717
> [1] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-August/028124.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/