| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1377142037.25016.272.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:27:17 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: fweisbec@...il.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, paulus@...ba.org,
shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, galak@...nel.crashing.org,
deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
arnd@...db.de, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
rjw@...k.pl, john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
chenhui.zhao@...escale.com, michael@...erman.id.au,
r58472@...escale.com, geoff@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 3/6] cpuidle/ppc: Add timer offload framework to
support deep idle states
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 17:26 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> static irqreturn_t timer_action(int irq, void *data)
> {
> - timer_interrupt();
> + decrementer_timer_interrupt();
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
I don't completely understand what you are doing here, but ...
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ irqreturn_t smp_ipi_demux(void)
>
> #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
> if (all & (1 << (24 - 8 * PPC_MSG_TIMER)))
> - timer_interrupt();
> + decrementer_timer_interrupt();
Why call this decrementer_* since it's specifically *not* the
decrementer ?
Makes more sense to be called broadcast_timer_interrupt() no ?
> if (all & (1 << (24 - 8 * PPC_MSG_RESCHEDULE)))
> scheduler_ipi();
> if (all & (1 << (24 - 8 * PPC_MSG_CALL_FUNC_SINGLE)))
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> index 65ab9e9..7e858e1 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> #include <linux/timex.h>
> #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
> #include <linux/time.h>
> +#include <linux/timer.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/profile.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> @@ -97,8 +98,11 @@ static struct clocksource clocksource_timebase = {
>
> static int decrementer_set_next_event(unsigned long evt,
> struct clock_event_device *dev);
> +static int broadcast_set_next_event(unsigned long evt,
> + struct clock_event_device *dev);
> static void decrementer_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
> struct clock_event_device *dev);
> +static void decrementer_timer_broadcast(const struct cpumask *mask);
>
> struct clock_event_device decrementer_clockevent = {
> .name = "decrementer",
> @@ -106,13 +110,26 @@ struct clock_event_device decrementer_clockevent = {
> .irq = 0,
> .set_next_event = decrementer_set_next_event,
> .set_mode = decrementer_set_mode,
> - .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT,
> + .broadcast = decrementer_timer_broadcast,
> + .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT,
> };
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(decrementer_clockevent);
>
> +struct clock_event_device broadcast_clockevent = {
> + .name = "broadcast",
> + .rating = 200,
> + .irq = 0,
> + .set_next_event = broadcast_set_next_event,
> + .set_mode = decrementer_set_mode,
Same here, why "decrementer" ? This event device is *not* the
decrementer right ?
Also, pardon my ignorance, by why do we need a separate
clock_event_device ? Ie what does that do ? I am not familiar with the
broadcast scheme and what .broadcast do in the "decrementer" one, so
you need to provide me at least with better explanations.
> + .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(broadcast_clockevent);
> +
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, decrementers_next_tb);
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct clock_event_device, decrementers);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct clock_event_device, bc_timer);
Do we really need an additional per CPU here ? What does the bc_timer
actually represent ? The sender (broadcaster) or receiver ? In the
latter case, why does it have to differ from the decrementer ?
> +int bc_cpu;
A global with that name ? Exported ? That's gross...
> #define XSEC_PER_SEC (1024*1024)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> @@ -487,6 +504,8 @@ void timer_interrupt(struct pt_regs * regs)
> struct pt_regs *old_regs;
> u64 *next_tb = &__get_cpu_var(decrementers_next_tb);
> struct clock_event_device *evt = &__get_cpu_var(decrementers);
> + struct clock_event_device *bc_evt = &__get_cpu_var(bc_timer);
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> u64 now;
>
> /* Ensure a positive value is written to the decrementer, or else
> @@ -532,6 +551,10 @@ void timer_interrupt(struct pt_regs * regs)
> *next_tb = ~(u64)0;
> if (evt->event_handler)
> evt->event_handler(evt);
> + if (cpu == bc_cpu && bc_evt->event_handler) {
> + bc_evt->event_handler(bc_evt);
> + }
> +
So here, on a CPU that happens to be "bc_cpu", we call an additional
"event_handler" on every timer interrupt ? What does that handler
actually do ? How does it relate to the "broadcast" field in the
original clock source ?
> } else {
> now = *next_tb - now;
> if (now <= DECREMENTER_MAX)
> @@ -806,6 +829,20 @@ static int decrementer_set_next_event(unsigned long evt,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * We cannot program the decrementer of a remote CPU. Hence CPUs going into
> + * deep idle states need to send IPIs to the broadcast CPU to program its
> + * decrementer for their next local event so as to receive a broadcast IPI
> + * for the same. In order to avoid the overhead of multiple CPUs from sending
> + * IPIs, this function is a nop. Instead the broadcast CPU will handle the
> + * wakeup of CPUs in deep idle states in each of its local timer interrupts.
> + */
> +static int broadcast_set_next_event(unsigned long evt,
> + struct clock_event_device *dev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static void decrementer_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
> struct clock_event_device *dev)
> {
> @@ -813,6 +850,20 @@ static void decrementer_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
> decrementer_set_next_event(DECREMENTER_MAX, dev);
> }
>
> +void decrementer_timer_interrupt(void)
> +{
> + struct clock_event_device *evt;
> + evt = &per_cpu(decrementers, smp_processor_id());
> +
> + if (evt->event_handler)
> + evt->event_handler(evt);
> +}
So that's what happens when we receive the broadcast... it might need
some stats ... and it's using the normal "decrementer" clock source,
so I still have a problem understanding why you need another one.
> +static void decrementer_timer_broadcast(const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> + arch_send_tick_broadcast(mask);
> +}
Ok, so far so good. But that's also hooked into the normal clock
source...
> static void register_decrementer_clockevent(int cpu)
> {
> struct clock_event_device *dec = &per_cpu(decrementers, cpu);
> @@ -826,6 +877,20 @@ static void register_decrementer_clockevent(int cpu)
> clockevents_register_device(dec);
> }
>
> +static void register_broadcast_clockevent(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct clock_event_device *bc_evt = &per_cpu(bc_timer, cpu);
> +
> + *bc_evt = broadcast_clockevent;
> + bc_evt->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> +
> + printk_once(KERN_DEBUG "clockevent: %s mult[%x] shift[%d] cpu[%d]\n",
> + bc_evt->name, bc_evt->mult, bc_evt->shift, cpu);
> +
> + clockevents_register_device(bc_evt);
> + bc_cpu = cpu;
> +}
> +
> static void __init init_decrementer_clockevent(void)
> {
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> @@ -840,6 +905,19 @@ static void __init init_decrementer_clockevent(void)
> register_decrementer_clockevent(cpu);
> }
>
> +static void __init init_broadcast_clockevent(void)
> +{
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + clockevents_calc_mult_shift(&broadcast_clockevent, ppc_tb_freq, 4);
> +
> + broadcast_clockevent.max_delta_ns =
> + clockevent_delta2ns(DECREMENTER_MAX, &broadcast_clockevent);
> + broadcast_clockevent.min_delta_ns =
> + clockevent_delta2ns(2, &broadcast_clockevent);
> + register_broadcast_clockevent(cpu);
> +}
> +
> void secondary_cpu_time_init(void)
> {
> /* Start the decrementer on CPUs that have manual control
> @@ -916,6 +994,7 @@ void __init time_init(void)
> clocksource_init();
>
> init_decrementer_clockevent();
> + init_broadcast_clockevent();
> }
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/Kconfig
> index ace2d22..e1a96eb 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/Kconfig
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ config PPC_POWERNV
> select PPC_ICP_NATIVE
> select PPC_P7_NAP
> select PPC_PCI_CHOICE if EMBEDDED
> + select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
> select EPAPR_BOOT
> default y
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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