Message-Id: <201205032243.56848.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 3 May 2012 22:43:56 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Trinabh Gupta <g.trinabh@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/5] coupled cpuidle state support

On Thursday, May 03, 2012, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> <snip>
> > There are two distinct cases to consider here, (1) when the last I/O
> > device in the domain becomes idle and the question is whether or not to
> > power off the entire domain and (2) when a CPU core in a power domain
> > becomes idle while all of the devices in the domain are idle already.
> >
> > Case (2) is quite straightforward, the .enter() routine for the
> > "domain" C-state has to check whether the domain can be turned off and
> > do it eventually.
> >
> > Case (1) is more difficult and (assuming that all CPU cores in the domain
> > are already idle at this point) i see two possible ways to handle it:
> > (a) Wake up all of the (idle) CPU cores in the domain and let the
> >  "domain" C-state's .enter() do the job (ie. turn it into case (2)),
> >  similarly to your patchset.
> > (b) If cpuidle has prepared the cores for going into deeper idle,
> >  turn the domain off directly without waking up the cores.
> 
> Multiple clusters is a design that has been considered in this
> patchset (all the data structures are in the right place to support
> it), and can be supported in the future, but does not exist in any
> current systems that would be using this.  In all of today's SoCs,
> there is a single cluster, so (1) can't happen - no code can be
> executing while all cpus are idle.

OK, but I think it should be taken into consideration nonetheless.

> (b) is an optimization that would not be possible on any future SoC
> that is similar to the current SoCs, where "turn the domain off" is
> very tightly integrated with TrustZone secure code running on the
> primary cpu of the cluster.

I see.

> <snip>
> 
> > Having considered this for a while I think that it may be more straightforward
> > to avoid waking up the already idled cores.
> >
> > For instance, say we have 4 CPU cores in a cluster (package) such that each
> > core has its own idle state (call it C1) and there is a multicore idle state
> > entered by turning off the entire cluster (call this state C-multi).  One of
> > the possible ways to handle this seems to be to use an identical table of
> > C-states for each core containing the C1 entry and a kind of fake entry called
> > (for example) C4 with the time characteristics of C-multi and a special
> > .enter() callback.  That callback will prepare the core it is called for to
> > enter C-multi, but instead of simply turning off the whole package it will
> > decrement a counter.  If the counte happens to be 0 at this point, the
> > package will be turned off.  Otherwise, the core will be put into the idle
> > state corresponding to C1, but it will be ready for entering C-multi at
> > any time. The counter will be incremented on exiting the C4 "state".
> 
> I implemented something very similar to this on Tegra2 (having each
> cpu go to C1, but with enough state saved for C-multi), but it turns
> out not to work in hardware.  On every existing ARM SMP system where I
> have worked with cpuidle (Tegra2, OMAP4, Exynos5, and some Tegra3),
> only cpu 0 can trigger the transition to C-multi.  The cause of this
> restriction is different on every platform - sometimes it's by design,
> sometimes it's a bug in the SoC ROM code, but the restriction exists.
> The primary cpu of the cluster always needs to be awake.

OK, so that means we need to do the wakeup for technical reasons.

> In addition, it may not be possible to transition secondary cpus from
> C1 to C-multi without waking them.  That would generally involve
> cutting power to a CPU that is in clock gating, which is not a
> supported power transition in any SoC that I have a datasheet for.  I
> made it work for cpu1 on Tegra2, but I can't guarantee that there are
> not unsolvable HW race conditions.
> 
> The only generic way to make this work is to wake up all cpus.  Waking
> up a subset of cpus is certainly worth investigating as an
> optimization, but it would not be used on Tegra2, OMAP4, or Exynos5.
> Tegra3 may benefit from it.

OK

> > It looks like this should work without modifying the cpuidle core, but
> > the drawback here is that the cpuidle core doesn't know how much time
> > spend in C4 is really in C1 and how much of it is in C-multi, so the
> > statistics reported by it won't reflect the real energy usage.
> 
> Idle statistics are extremely important when determining why a
> particular use case is drawing too much power, and it is worth
> modifying the cpuidle core if only to keep them accurate.  Especially
> when justifying the move from the cpufreq hotplug governor based code
> that every SoC vendor uses in their BSP to a proper multi-CPU cpuidle
> implementation.

I see.

Thanks for the explanation,
Rafael
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists