Message-ID: <CALAqxLXRKozKGko6zTOzMPsVhH2FRo2rpLauekFLRmH-22xS-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:18:21 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Move persistent clock registration code from
 ARM to kernel

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:21:22PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Thierry Reding
>> >> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:34:15AM -0800, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>> >> >> ARM timekeeping functionality allows to register persistent/boot clock dynamically.
>> >> >> This code is arch-independent and can be useful on other plaforms as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As a byproduct of this change, tegra20_timer becomes ARM64 compatible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tested: backported the change to chromeos-3.14 kernel ran on tegra 64bit
>> >> >> board, made sure high-resolution clock works.
>> >> >
>> >> > Using this on an upstream kernel doesn't work, though, because 64-bit
>> >> > ARM doesn't implement struct delay_timer which the driver needs since
>> >> > v3.17.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I suppose the delay timer infrastructure could be moved into the
>> >> > core similar to the persistent and boot clock as this patch does.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. It makes sense, I will send it in a separate patch, once this
>> >> one will be reviewed. On our kernel I haven't seen this issue as we
>> >> still use 3.14.
>> >
>> > That's why you should test/compile your stuff on latest greatest and
>> > not on a year old conglomorate of unknown provenance. :)
>> >
>> > Aside of that I really wonder why we need that persistent_clock stuff
>> > at all. We already have mechanisms to register persistent clocks AKA
>> > RTCs after the early boot process and update the wall clock time
>> > before we actually need it. Nothing in early boot depends on correct
>> > wall clock at all.
>> >
>> > So instead of adding more extra persistent clock nonsense, can we just
>> > move all of that to the place where it belongs, i.e. RTC?
>>
>> Sigh.. I've got this on an eventual todo list.. The big problem though
>> is that the RTC infrastructure can't be called with irqs off, so its
>> not as optimal for measuring suspend time.
>
> Is that because many RTC devices are accessed over something like I2C or
> SPI where interrupts are needed? Or are there additional reasons?

Right. The persistent_clock logic is called when irqs may be off, and
many RTC devices require interrupts.


>> Some of the suspend-time measurement with clocksources that don't halt
>> is interesting here.
>>
>> So we need to add to the RTC infrastructure special accessors that are
>> safe when irqs are off, and we can then deprecate the persistent clock
>> bits. There's still evaluation quirks with setting the time earlier in
>> boot or not (possibly some rng effects as well there), but that could
>> be worked out if we had the suspend timing via safe RTC interfaces
>> sorted.
>
> If it's only about slow busses, perhaps we could copy what other
> subsystems have been doing and add a ->can_sleep flag to RTC devices to
> mark those that can't be accessed with IRQs off.
>
> Having extra accessors seems to me like it won't work well. As I
> understand it we have two types of RTC devices: those that use slow
> busses and hence can't be accessed with interrupts off, and those that
> don't use a slow bus and therefore can be used with interrupts disabled.
> For the former I don't think it's possible to implement accessors that
> are safe when IRQs are disabled and for the latter the accessors don't
> need to be special. So I think a simple flag should be enough.

Yea, it doesn't necessarily need to be done via a new accessor, but I
assumed there would be some corner case hardware and the function
pointer would allow some extra flexibility.


> I've been thinking a little about how the implementation could look in
> practice. Would we simply add code to the weak implementation of the
> read_persistent_clock() function (kernel/time/timekeeping.c) which looks
> for an RTC device usable as persistent clock?
>
> So something like this:
>
>         void __weak read_persistent_clock(struct timespec *ts)
>         {
>                 struct rtc_device *rtc;
>
>                 rtc = rtc_class_open_persistent();
>                 if (rtc) {
>                         struct rtc_time tm;
>                         int err;
>
>                         err = rtc_read_time(rtc, &tm);
>                         rtc_class_close(rtc);
>
>                         if (!err) {
>                                 rtc_tm_to_timespec(&tm, ts);
>                                 return;
>                         }
>                 }
>
>                 ts->tv_sec = 0;
>                 tv->tv_nsec = 0;
>         }
>
> Where rtc_class_open_persistent() could be like rtc_class_open(), except
> that it uses a match function like this:
>
>         static int __rtc_match_persistent(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>         {
>                 struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
>
>                 return !rtc->can_sleep;
>         }
>
> If you still prefer to do this with accessors I suspect something very
> similar could be done.

Something like this could work, but I'd prefer we move it into the rtc
framework and use that directly, rather then stuffing the logic into
the persistent_clock code (so we can eventually get rid of the
persistent clock logic).

thanks
-john
--
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