[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <352edf44-5983-403f-b8f8-5dfbd92ea32d@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:22:15 -0500
From: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@...ihalf.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmytro Maluka <dmy@...ihalf.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Dominik Behr <dbehr@...gle.com>, upstream@...ihalf.com,
Zide Chen <zide.chen@...el.corp-partner.google.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Sachi King <nakato@...ato.io>,
"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:X86 PLATFORM DRIVERS"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:HIBERNATION (aka Software Suspend, aka swsusp)"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] suspend: extend S2Idle ops by new notify handler
>> It looks like you want suspend-to-idle to behave like S3 and it won't.
>
> In a way, yes, we compensate for the lack of something like PM1_CNT to
> trap on for detecting that the guest is suspending.
> We could instead force the guest to use S3 but IMO it is undesirable,
> since it generally does make a difference which suspend mode is used
> in the guest, s2idle or S3, e.g some drivers check which suspend type
> is used and based on that behaves differently during suspend. One of
> the example is:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv5.18.12%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fgpu%2Fdrm%2Famd%2Famdgpu%2Famdgpu_drv.c%23L2323&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7C7bdd972291324d03847e08da6a51ff4f%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637939197694682503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5M1sn3iRybQzSFi3ojQ4YTJuW41DlgJNl5sxbWEvLBQ%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv5.18.12%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fgpu%2Fdrm%2Famd%2Famdgpu%2Famdgpu_acpi.c%23L1069&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7C7bdd972291324d03847e08da6a51ff4f%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637939197694682503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fIrLmZAgpIRPYO4to4uYUoBSEWXmz1lr%2BTnR14kAfvM%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv5.18.12%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fgpu%2Fdrm%2Famd%2Famdgpu%2Famdgpu_gfx.c%23L583&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7C7bdd972291324d03847e08da6a51ff4f%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637939197694682503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SNsbmpV4HrgA%2Bkff4JzRodNDzKvwM5tnkGDvrKO44dc%3D&reserved=0
>
Actually I recently was suggesting a change to add this detection to
another driver to set a policy and Rafael pushed back. He's actively
removing it from other places in the kernel.
For amdgpu stuff you pointed above, are you wanting to pass through the
PCIe GPU device to a guest and then suspend that guest? Or is this just
illustrative?
For a dGPU I would expect it works, but I don't think passing an APU's
GPU PCIe endpoint would functionally work (there were bugs reported on
this I recall).
That code path you point out only has special handling for APU when
headed to S0ix and that's because the GPU driver happens to be where the
control point is for some common silicon functions. If the bug I
mentioned about PCIe passthrough of the APU GPU endpoint to the guest is
fixed and the guest needs to do s0ix when the host doesn't we're going
to have other breakage to worry about because of that common silicon
functionality I mentioned.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists