Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoRZyTpccWaE7TZXM=E2xRevqX9MxMGnuq6P=qfYQfBtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:04:06 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Raju P . L . S . S . S . N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/27] timer: Export next wakeup time of a CPU

[...]

> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * tick_nohz_get_next_wakeup - return the next wake up of the CPU
> > > > > + * @cpu: the particular CPU to get next wake up for
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Called for idle CPUs only.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +ktime_t tick_nohz_get_next_wakeup(int cpu)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     struct clock_event_device *dev = per_cpu(tick_cpu_device.evtdev, cpu);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     return dev->next_event;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  static void tick_nohz_account_idle_ticks(struct tick_sched *ts)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  #ifndef CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have concerns regarding this one.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe it is valid to call this new function for non-idle CPUs and
> > > > the kerneldoc kind of says so, but the next patch doesn't actually prevent
> > > > it from being called for a non-idle CPU (at the time it is called in there
> > > > the target CPU may not be idle any more AFAICS).
> > >
> > > You are correct, but let me clarify things.
> > >
> > > We are calling this new API from the new genpd governor, which may
> > > have a cpumask indicating there is more than one CPU attached to its
> > > PM domain+sub-PM domains. In other words, we may call the API for
> > > another CPU than the one we are executing on.
> > >
> > > When the new genpd governor is called, all CPUs in the cpumask of the
> > > genpd in question, are already runtime suspended and will remain so
> > > throughout the decisions made by the governor.
> > >
> > > However, because of the race condition, which needs to be manged by
> > > the genpd backend driver and its corresponding FW, one of the CPU in
> > > the genpd cpumask could potentially wake up from idle when the genpd
> > > governor runs. However, as a part of exiting from idle, that CPU needs
> > > to wait for the call to pm_runtime_get_sync() to return before
> > > completing the exit patch of idle. This also means waiting for the
> > > genpd governor to finish.
> >
> > OK, so the CPU spins on a spin lock inside of the idle loop with interrupts off.
>
> Correct.
>
> This is the part that is not very nice, but ideally it should be a
> rather rare condition as it only happens during the last man standing
> point.
>
> >
> > > The point is, no matter what decision the governor takes under these
> > > circumstances, the genpd backend driver and its FW must manage this
> > > race condition during the last man standing. For PSCI OSI mode, it
> > > means that if a cluster idle state is suggested by Linux during these
> > > circumstances, it must be prevented and aborted.
> >
> > I would suggest putting a comment to explain that somewhere as it is
> > not really obvious.
>
> Let me see if can squeeze in that somewhere, probably it's best suited
> in the new genpd governor code somewhere.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > In principle, the cpuidle core can store this value, say in struct
> > > > cpuidle_device of the given CPU, and expose a helper to access it from
> > > > genpd, but that would be extra overhead totally unnecessary on everthing
> > > > that doesn't use genpd for cpuidle.
> > > >
> > > > So maybe the driver could store it in its ->enter callback?  After all,
> > > > the driver knows that genpd is going to be used later.
> > >
> > > This would work, but it wouldn't really change much when it comes to
> > > the race condition described above.
> >
> > No, it wouldn't make the race go away.
> >
> > > Of course it would turn the code
> > > into being more cpuidle specific, which seems reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, if I understand your suggestion, in principle it means
> > > changing $subject patch in such way that the API should not take "int
> > > cpu" as an in-parameter, but instead only use __this_cpu() to read out
> > > the next event for current idle CPU.
> >
> > Yes.

I have looked closer to this and it turned out that it seems that I
should probably not need introduce an entirely new thing here. Instead
I should likely be able to re-factor the current
tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() and tick_nohz_next_event(), as those are
in principle doing the similar things as I need. So I started hacking
on that, when Daniel Lezcano told me that he already have a patch
doing exactly what I want. :-) However, in the context of his "next
wakeup prediction" work, but that shouldn't matter.

If I can make it work, I will fold in his patch in the next version of
the series instead.

Please tell if you already at this point, see any issues with this approach.

> >
> > > Additionally, we need another new cpuidle API, which genpd can call to
> > > retrieve a new per CPU "next event data" stored by the cpuidle driver
> > > from its ->enter() callback. Is this a correct interpretation of your
> > > suggestion?
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> Thanks for confirming!
>
> >
> > Generally, something like "cpuidle, give me the wakeup time of this
> > CPU".  And it may very well give you 0 if the CPU has woken up
> > already. :-)
>
> Yep, I was thinking something like that, so in principle it may
> minimize the window of receiving in-correct "next wakeup data" in
> genpd for a non-idle CPU, but again it doesn't solve the race
> condition.
>

Kind regards
Uffe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists