Message-ID: <e7a97c52-f61a-e503-f626-09563fa100b8@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:07:47 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] coresight: add support for debug module



On 22/03/17 12:54, Mike Leach wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21 March 2017 at 15:39, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com 
> <mailto:sudeep.holla@....com>> wrote:
> 
[...]

> I disagree with this approach. One of the main usefulness of such
> self hosted debug feature is to debug issues around features like
> cpuidle. Adding constraints like "cpuidle needs to be disabled" is
> not good IMO. There are ways to make it work with cpuidle enabled.
> Please explore them. In particular refer H9.2.39 EDPRCR, External
> Debug Power/Reset Control Register.
> 
> So, "nohlt" option is not an option. I prefer some sysfs option like 
> Suzuki suggested to enable this feature on demand if power saving in 
> normal usecase is the concern. Using "nohlt" just disables idle and 
> doesn't ensure the debug power domain is ON. Using the flag directly
> in this driver to enable debug power domain also sounds misuse of
> that flag for me.
> 
> I think the key issue to remember here is that experience with
> external debug shows that CPU Idle means different things to
> different SoC designs / power management schemes. (and we are using
> external debug in a self hosted way here).
> 

Yes agreed on the point that meaning of "cpuidle" differs on each SoC.

> Some designs will power down an entire cluster if all CPUs on the 
> cluster are powered down - including the parts of the debug
> registers that should remain powered in the debug power domain.

Interesting, at-least ETMv4 or some other coresight specification
clearly classify the power domains and the register access. The actual
power domain itself may vary depending on implementation.

> The bits in EDPRCR are not respected in these cases - these designs
> do not really support debug over power down in the way that the
> CoreSight / Debug designers anticipated. This means that even
> checking EDPRSR has the potential to cause a bus hang if the target
> register is unpowered. (and if the debug power domain is unpowered
> then the PC data is also lost).
> 

Agreed, but can we start supporting the sane designs in sane way first.
We can always add compatible and handle deviations. I agree we may need
to support such deviations but starting with that seems setting a bad
example.

> In these cases, accessing to the debug registers while they are not 
> powered is a recipe for disaster - so preventing CPUIdle ​and the
> subsequent cluster power down ​ allows investigation on this class of
> system - ​and allowing the CPUs of interest be interrogated without
> hanging the crash log process.​
> 

Agreed. But my point is that many issues are around cpuidle and some
usecase and just eliminating that use-case sounds bad. For me,
core-sight was most useful to debug issues around cpu power management
and lockups where we can't stop cores but examine these registers.
There are other alternatives for other use-cases IMO.

> 
> ​On systems that do behave correctly with respect to debug power 
> domains, then disabling CPUIdle is unnecessary - these can be
> controlled by ​EDPRCR - perhaps; per the specification it is
> "implementation defined" if writing bits to this register have an
> effect on the system anyway even if the debug domain is correctly
> powered.
> 

We can always do that unconditionally. If implementations don't honor
those bits, it's different. If they hang on accessing something which is
on debug power domain and not on core power domain, then you have much
bigger issue to solve. How can you even trust and make any other
register accesses that are in debug power domain then ?

> ​While it is true to say that disabling CPUIdle does not guarantee
> that the debug power domain is on, it does in a certain class of
> designs prevent it being powered off (Juno historically - not sure if
> that is still the case.).
> 

Again it's completely platform specific. All you need to care is that
the debug power domain is on or not. Disabling CPUIdle to achieve that
is simply wrong and may work only on few platforms.

> However, I do agree that the use of the driver should not be
> triggered _only_ on the existence of /nohlt on the command line - ​
> there is a class of designs where this will not be required.
> 

Thanks

> When enabing the driver as a kernel config the user needs to
> decide:- 1) do I need this to debug the issue I am seeing 2) does the
> power management on my system require I use /nohlt as well.

Please don't *misuse* nohlt to disable idle. There are other ways to
do the same either from the user-space or from the driver.

> 
> I think that the use of /nohlt as an option, and the reasons why it 
> might be needed should be part of the configuration help in this
> case.
> 
> There is also a case for considering if there should be an option to 
> configure it to be enabled or disabled at boot time. It is easy to 
> imagine cases I want to have this running from the start as a crash 
> happens early - and cases I can enable it on demand later.
> 

Also consider with cpuidle enabled ;). I can help testing if needed.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists