[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5485936F.20901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 17:32:55 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jingchang.lu@...escale.com" <jingchang.lu@...escale.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] tick-broadcast: Register for hrtimer based broadcast
as the fallback broadcast mode
On 12/08/2014 04:18 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Preeti,
>
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:55:43AM +0000, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Commit 5d1638acb9f6 ('tick: Introduce hrtimer based broadcast') added a
>> hrtimer based broadcast mode for those platforms in which local timers stop
>> when CPUs enter deep idle states. The commit expected the platforms to
>> register for this mode explicitly when they lacked a better external device
>> to wake up CPUs in deep idle. Given that more platforms are beginning to use
>> this mode, we can avoid the call to set it up on every platform that requires
>> it, by registering for the hrtimer based broadcast mode in the core code if
>> no better broadcast device is available.
>>
>> This commit also helps detect cases where the platform fails to register for
>> a broadcast device but invokes the help of one when entering deep idle states.
>> Currently we do not handle this situation at all and call the broadcast clock
>> device without checking for its existence. This patch will handle such buggy
>> cases properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> I've just given this a go on an arm64 platform (Juno) without any
> system-wide clock_event_devices registered, and everything works well
> with CPUs entering and exiting idle states where the cpu-local timers
> lose state. So:
>
> Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Thanks!
>
> One minor thing I noticed when testing was that
> /sys/devices/system/clockevents/broadcast/name contained "(null)",
> because we never set the name field on the clock_event_device. It's
> always been that way, but now might be a good time to change that to
> something like "broadcast_hrtimer".
You mean /sys/devices/system/clockevents/broadcast/current_device right?
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
>> index 2e4cb67..91754b0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
>> @@ -187,11 +187,11 @@ extern int tick_receive_broadcast(void);
>> #endif
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST) && defined(CONFIG_TICK_ONESHOT)
>> -extern void tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void);
>> +extern int __init tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void);
>> extern int tick_check_broadcast_expired(void);
>> #else
>> static inline int tick_check_broadcast_expired(void) { return 0; }
>> -static inline void tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void) {};
>> +static inline int __init tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void) { return 0; }
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
>> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static inline void clockevents_resume(void) {}
>>
>> static inline int clockevents_notify(unsigned long reason, void *arg) { return 0; }
>> static inline int tick_check_broadcast_expired(void) { return 0; }
>> -static inline void tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void) {};
>> +static inline int __init tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void) { return 0; }
>
> With the initcall moved to the driver we have no external users of
> tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast, so I think we can remove the prototype
> entirely from clockchips.h...
>
>> #endif
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast-hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast-hrtimer.c
>> index eb682d5..5c35995 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast-hrtimer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast-hrtimer.c
>> @@ -98,9 +98,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bc_handler(struct hrtimer *t)
>> return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>> }
>>
>> -void tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void)
>> +int __init tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(void)
>
> ...and make it static here.
Yep will do. Sorry I overlooked this.
>
>> {
>> hrtimer_init(&bctimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
>> bctimer.function = bc_handler;
>> clockevents_register_device(&ce_broadcast_hrtimer);
>> + return 0;
>> }
>> +early_initcall(tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast);
>
> Otherwise this looks good to me, thanks for putting this together!
Thanks a lot for the review! Will send out the patch with the above
corrections.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
--
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