linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd/rpmhpd: Add a max vote on all corners at init

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f5014664-1639-c610-a50a-db66484428dc@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:05:55 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, andy.gross@...aro.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd/rpmhpd: Add a max vote on all
 corners at init



On 06/14/2018 03:58 AM, David Collins wrote:
> Hello Rajendra,
> 
> On 06/11/2018 09:40 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> As we move from no clients/consumers in kernel voting on corners,
>> to *some* voting and some not voting, we might end up in a situation
>> where the clients which remove votes can adversly impact others
> 
> s/adversly/adversely/
> 
>> who still don't have a way to vote.
>>
>> To avoid this situation, have a max vote on all corners at init.
>> This should/can be removed once we have all clients moved to
>> be able to vote/unvote for themselves.
> 
> This change seems like a hack.  Do you intend for it to be merged and then
> later reverted in Linus's tree?  Could it instead be implemented in a way
> that does not require reverting and instead is enabled by some DT
> property?  Alternatively, could this feature be added to the power domain
> core since it is relatively generic?
> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c  |  9 +++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> index 7083ec1590ff..3c753d33aeee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int rpmhpd_update_level_mapping(struct rpmhpd *rpmhpd)
>>  
>>  static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  {
>> -	int i, ret;
>> +	int i, ret, max_level;
>>  	size_t num;
>>  	struct genpd_onecell_data *data;
>>  	struct rpmhpd **rpmhpds;
>> @@ -390,6 +390,16 @@ static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		pm_genpd_init(&rpmhpds[i]->pd, NULL, true);
>>  
>>  		data->domains[i] = &rpmhpds[i]->pd;
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Until we have all consumers voting on corners
>> +		 * just vote the max corner on all PDs
>> +		 * This should ideally be *removed* once we have
>> +		 * all (most) consumers being able to vote
>> +		 */
>> +		max_level = rpmhpds[i]->level_count - 1;
>> +		rpmhpd_set_performance(&rpmhpds[i]->pd, rpmhpds[i]->level[max_level]);
>> +		rpmhpd_power_on(&rpmhpds[i]->pd);
> 
> Clearly these calls will result in max level requests being sent for all
> power domains at probe time.  However, it isn't clear that this will
> actually help at runtime in these two cases:
> 
> 1. A consumer enables and then disables a power domain.
> 	- It seems like the PD would just be disabled in this case.
> 
> 2. A consumer sets a non-max performance state of a power domain.
> 	- It seems like the PD would just be set to the new lower
> 	  performance state since the max vote isn't known to the
> 	  PD core for aggregation purposes.

Yes, you are right. I certainly did not seem to have thought through this enough.

A need for something like this came up at a point where genpd could not deal with
devices with multiple power domains. So the concern at that point was that if some
consumers (which only need to vote on one corner) move to using this driver, while 
some others (which need to vote on multiple corners) cannot, we would end up breaking
them.

That does not seem to be true anymore since we do have patches from Ulf which support
having devices with multiple power domains attached which can be controlled individually.
So if some consumer voting makes some others break, they should just be fixed and patched
to vote as well. If all this gets handled centrally from within the clock drivers then we
most likely won't even end up with a situation like this.

I think I will just drop this one unless Stephen/Viresh still see an issue with some early
voters breaking others.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation