linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] soc: qcom: llcc: Support chipsets that can write to llcc registers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <2fe7e79f4fc877eb5d488d799fbf44d6@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 03 Sep 2020 21:34:31 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] soc: qcom: llcc: Support chipsets that can write to
 llcc registers

Hi,

On 2020-09-03 21:24, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:47 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2020-09-03 19:16, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:58 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> > <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 2020-08-18 21:07, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> >> > Hi Doug,
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess to start, it wasn't obvious (to me) that there were two
>> >> >> choices and we were picking one.  Mentioning that the other
>> >> >> alternative was way-based allocation would help a lot.  Even if you
>> >> >> can't fully explain the differences between the two, adding something
>> >> >> to the commit message indicating that this is a policy decision (in
>> >> >> other words, both work but each have their tradeoffs) would help.
>> >> >> Something like this, if it's correct:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In general we try to enable capacity based allocation (instead of the
>> >> >> default way based allocation) since that gives us better performance
>> >> >> with the current software / hardware configuration.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks, I will add it for next version. Let me also go poke some arch
>> >> > teams
>> >> > to understand if we actually do gain something with this selection, who
>> >> > knows
>> >> > we might get some additional details as well.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I got some information from arch team today, to quote them exactly:
>> >>
>> >> 1) What benefits capacity based allocation brings over the default way
>> >> based allocation?
>> >>
>> >> "Capacity based allows finer grain partition. It is not about improved
>> >> performance but more flexibility in configuration."
>> >>
>> >> 2) Retain through power collapse, doesn’t it burn more power?
>> >>
>> >> "This feature is similar to the standard feature of retention. Yes,
>> >> when
>> >> we
>> >> have cache in retention mode it burns more power but it keeps the
>> >> values
>> >> so
>> >> that when we wake up we can get more cache hits."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If its good enough, then I will add this info to the commit msg and
>> >> post
>> >> next version.
>> >
>> > Sounds fine to me.  I was mostly looking for a high level idea of what
>> > was happening here.  I am at least a little curious about the
>> > retention bit.  Is that retention during S3, or during some sort of
>> > Runtime PM?  Any idea how much power is burned?  Unless the power is
>> > miniscule it seems hard to believe that it would be a net win to keep
>> > a cache powered up during S3 unless you're planning on waking up a
>> > lot.
>> >
>> 
>> The retention setting is based on sub cache id(SCID), so I think its 
>> for
>> runtime pm, the power numbers weren't provided. But I believe these
>> decisions are made after solid testing and not some random
>> approximations.
> 
> Right, I believe it was tested, I just wonder if it was tested on a
> phone vs. a laptop.  A phone is almost constantly waking up to deal
> with stuff (which is why my phone battery barely lasts till the end of
> the day).  Phones also usually have some type of self refresh on their
> panels so they can be suspended even when they look awake which means
> even more constant wakeups.  A laptop (especially without panel self
> refresh) may have very different usage models.  I'm trying to confirm
> that this setting is appropriate for both classes of devices or if it
> has been only measured / optimized for the cell phone use case.
> 

Could be, but there are windows laptops based on QCOM SoCs where these
must have also been tested (note that this setting can also be in 
firmware
and no one would know), but I don't have numbers to quantify.

Thanks,
Sai

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