[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21e3cc35-cc6b-5452-da93-bdaac43716c5@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:48:56 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
Jasper Korten <jja2000@...il.com>,
David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>,
Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/17] arm: tegra20: cpuidle: Handle case where
secondary CPU hangs on entering LP2
On 21/02/2020 21:21, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 21.02.2020 23:02, Daniel Lezcano пишет:
[ ... ]
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * The primary CPU0 core shall wait for the secondaries
>>>>>>> + * shutdown in order to power-off CPU's cluster safely.
>>>>>>> + * The timeout value depends on the current CPU frequency,
>>>>>>> + * it takes about 40-150us in average and over 1000us in
>>>>>>> + * a worst case scenario.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + do {
>>>>>>> + if (tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready())
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + } while (ktime_before(ktime_get(), timeout));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this loop will aggresively call tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() and retry 3
>>>>>> times. The tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() function can be called thoushand of times
>>>>>> here but the function will hang 1.5s :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while (retries--i && !tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready())
>>>>>> udelay(100);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So <retries> calls to tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() and 100us x <retries> maximum
>>>>>> impact.
>>>>> But udelay() also results into CPU spinning in a busy-loop, and thus,
>>>>> what's the difference?
>>>>
>>>> busy looping instead of register reads with all the hardware things involved behind.
>>>
>>> Please notice that this code runs only on an older Cortex-A9/A15, which
>>> doesn't support WFE for the delaying, and thus, CPU always busy-loops
>>> inside udelay().
>>>
>>> What about if I'll add cpu_relax() to the loop? Do you think it it could
>>> have any positive effect?
>>
>> I think udelay() has a call to cpu_relax().
>
> Yes, my point is that udelay() doesn't bring much benefit for us here
> because:
>
> 1. we want to enter into power-gated state as quick as possible and
> udelay() just adds an unnecessary delay
>
> 2. udelay() spins in a busy-loop until delay is expired, just like we're
> doing it in this function already
In this case why not remove ktime_get() and increase the number of retries?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists