Message-ID: <CAMQu2gzYrzei7Li+m6o0JtiF9LUSDvpQT71KhgMafC_f_KxPJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 12 May 2012 12:02:13 +0530
From:	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM / Domains: Add preliminary cpuidle support

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2012, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 11 May 2012 12:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 10, 2012, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> >> Rafael,
>> >>
>> >> On Thursday 10 May 2012 03:13 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>> >>>
>> >>> On some systems there are CPU cores located in the same power
>> >>> domains as I/O devices.  Then, power can only be removed from the
>> >>> domain if all I/O devices in it are not in use and the CPU core
>> >>> is idle.  Add preliminary support for that to the generic PM domains
>> >>> framework.
>> >>>
>> >> I am just curious to know, what kind of IO devices, you are
>> >> talking here?
>> >
>> > Nothing specific, really.  It can be any kind of I/O devices that happen
>> > to be in the same power domain.  This includes USB, SDHI, MMCIF controllers
>> > on the SoC I have in mind in particular.
>> >
>> OK.
>> These are more of generic devices and actually not related to CPU/CPU
>> clusters as such.
>>
>> >> And also how those devices linked with CPU low power
>> >> states apart from being part of same power domain. And is it
>> >> the power domain or more of voltage domain, we are talking here.
>> >
>> > Depending on the definitions I guess.  How do you define a power domain and
>> > a voltage domain?
>> >
>>
>> A voltage domain can be a section of the device supplied by a dedicated
>> voltage rail. A voltage domain can have many power-domains like
>> CPU cluster domain, Interconnect domain, peripheral domains.
>> And each power domain then can have many sub-modules like UART, SPI,
>> USB etc
>
> OK, so this is not the level of detail the code in question is about.
>
> In my terminology a power domain is a set of devices such that it only is
> possible to remove power from (and restore power to) all of them together.
>
> [...]
>> >
>> > The system I have in mind is designed in such a way that there is a power
>> > domain with three subdomains, one of which contains the CPU core and the
>> > remaining two contain I/O devices of various kinds.  General purpose as well
>> > as "core".
>> >
>> I am not sure CPUIDLE is suppose to take care of these kind of general
>> purpose IO's. CPUIDLE should take care of CPU and CPU cluster power
>> management. Any other peripherals as you mentioned should be already
>> have some sort of device drivers and they should be using runtime PM for
>> it, no?
>
> Yes.
>
>> And for the constraints, PM-Qos can be used. So far CPUIDLE
>> core code has maintained that distinction and all the C-state latencies
>> are of the CPU clusters rather than the SOC.
>
> Well, that need not be the case and my patch is about that.
>
>> If you have a voltage rail dependency then that should be handled
>> in the voltage layer/regulator layer. If there is a power domain
>> dependency then the power domain framework should do the use
>> counting yo handle such scenarios.
>
> The power domain framework, though, only covers I/O devices at the moment
> and this is an attempt to extend it to cover domains containing CPU cores
> as well as I/O devices.
>
>> Please correct me but, IIUC, your proposal wants to use CPUIDLE
>> for the SOC level power management.
>
> That depends on what you mean by SoC-level.
>
>> Will you be able to expand your requirements and explain why can't
>> you manage PM for the general purpose devices like MMC, USB etc
>> in their own device drivers ?
>
> Because it is not possible to remove power from those devices individually.
>
> Say you have a bunch of I/O devices such that you can only remove power from
> all of them simultaneously (a power domain, that is).  Suppose that there
> is a register such that if a specific value is written to it, power is cut
> from all of those devices at the same time (and there's an analogous value
> for restoring power).  Then, you can use the generic PM domains framework
> for power management of those devices.
>
> Suppose, however, that if you write the "cut power" value to the register,
> your CPU core will lose power too.  This case is beyond the scope of the
> existing generic PM domains framework, because it has to take the CPU power
> management into account, which is cpuidle in this particular case.
>
Thanks for the explanation and now I understand your hardware and the
patch-set intention bit better. Multiple devices in a power domain is very
common design and OMAP also has similar concepts. If there are
more than one module, a powerdomain can maintain an usecount.
And whenever individual modules idle, they will decrements it.
And when all module in a power-domain idle, the power-domain
can do low power transition.

Your case is bit special because CPU is also part of the same power
domain as IO's. Since CPU is part of the root power domain along
with peripherals, you want CPU to be the device to cut the power in
the end(idle) and all the notifiers prepares the IO's for the 'cut
power' which CPU can do in the cpuidle. And then on the reverse
chain, notifier will help devices to restore the context so that can
resume without any issues.

Well if CPU is added as one more device along with other
peripherals, you can still make it work at power domain framework
level. This can be debated further but I think, we need an agreement
on CPUIDLE exclusivity.

Based on your hardware, say the USB is doing a huge DMA transfer
and CPU is not doing anything so it will hit idle thread and can idle.
At least your CPU sub-domain can idle because it is quite independent
even if you can't cut the power for whole domain. Even with
your patchset its not possible to cut the power because one of the
device in the domain is busy. There can be scenario, where say
SPI is not used for thousands of CPU idle entry/exit so there
is no need to worry about its context save/restore for every
idle entry/exit.

The way I am looking at your issue is, every device in a power domain
including CPU will decrement the powerdomain usecount. This can be
handled through runtime PM. When they idle, they can save the context
and the context can be restored only when next time they needs to be
used. CPU can also decrements the usecount in the idle entry and then check
whether the usecound of the common PD is zero. If it is, it can cut the
power else just do CPU sub-domain idle.

I might be off track if above can't be managed for your hardware.

Regards
Santosh
--
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