linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] arm64: Use PSCI calls for CPU stop when hotplug is supported

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]

Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:33:16 -0800
From:   Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
        Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] arm64: Use PSCI calls for CPU stop when hotplug
 is supported

Hi Sudeep,

On 2019-01-23 9:21 a.m., Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 09:05:26AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Hopefully I can shed some light on the use case inline.
>>
>> On 2019-01-23 8:48 a.m., Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:30:02AM +0530, Pramod Kumar wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:28 AM Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       Need comes from a specific use case where one Accelerator card(SoC) is
>>>>       plugged in a sever over a PCIe interface.  This Card gets supply from a
>>>>       battery, which could provide very less power for a very small time, in case
>>>>       of any power loss. Once Card switches to battery, this has to reduce its
>>>>       power consumption to its lowest point and back-up the DDR contents asap
>>>>       before battery gets fully drained off.
>>> In this example is Linux running on the server, or on the accelerator?
>> Accelerator
>>> What precisely are you trying to back up from DDR, and why?
>> Data in DDR is being written to disk at this time (disk is connected to
>> accelerator)
>>> What is responsible for backing up that contents?
>> A low power M-class processor and DMA engine which continues necessary
>> operations to transfer DDR memory to disk.
>>
>> The high power processors on the accelerator running linux needed to be
>> halted ASAP on this power loss event and M0 take over. Graceful shutdown of
>> linux and other peripherals is unnecessary (and we don't have the power
>> necessary to do so).
>>
> It may be unnecessary for your use-case, but not recommended.
No choice - we don't have the time/power for a graceful shutdown.
>
>>>>       Since battery can provide limited power for a very short time hence need to
>>>>       transition to lowest power. As per the transition process , CPUs power
>>>>       domain has to be off but before that it needs to flush out its content to
>>>>       system memory(L3) so that content could be backed-up by a MCU, a controller
>>>>       consuming very less power. Since we can not afford plugging-out every
>>>>       individual CPUs in sequence hence uses  ipi_cpu_stop for all other CPUs
>>>>       which ultimately switch to ATF to flush out all the CPUs caches and comes
>>>>       out of coherency domain so that its power rails could be switched-off.
>>> If you're stopping CPUs from completely arbitrary states, what is the
>>> benefit of saving the RAM contents?
>> Some of the RAM contains data that was in the process of being written to
>> disk by the accelerator.
>>
>> This data must be saved to disk and the high power CPUs consume too much
>> power to continue performing this operation.
>>
> Why will suspend to ram or idle not work ? It will power off the secondaries
> which this patch is trying to achieve, but in more sane way so that no
> data/state is lost/corrupted as I stated earlier.
We need to take over control of the disk write operations.  There is no 
time/power available to leave linux running.
>
>>> CPUs might be running with IRQs disabled for an arbitrarily long time,
>> In an embedded linux system we control everything running.
>>
> By which I assume you have patches to do all sorts of things to make this
> work and this patch standalone is of no use :)

I believe other patch is in a standalone driver to be upstreamed.

Remainder of code is on a standalone M0 processor not running linux.

>
> I don't like this as it's not scalable to big systems as this is in the
> same code path as system off/reset.
Many things are not used by big systems and vice versa.  What do you 
suggest is done otherwise?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep

Regards,

  Scott