lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 09/26] kernel/cpu_pm: Manage runtime PM in the idle path for CPUs
Date
On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:11:06 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 7:22:09 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > To allow CPUs being power managed by PM domains, let's deploy support for
> > runtime PM for the CPU's corresponding struct device.
> >
> > More precisely, at the point when the CPU is about to enter an idle state,
> > decrease the runtime PM usage count for its corresponding struct device,
> > via calling pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(). Then, at the point when the CPU
> > resumes from idle, let's increase the runtime PM usage count, via calling
> > pm_runtime_get_sync().
> >
> > Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
> > Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>
> I finally got to this one, sorry for the huge delay.
>
> Let me confirm that I understand the code flow correctly.
>
> > ---
> > kernel/cpu_pm.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu_pm.c b/kernel/cpu_pm.c
> > index 67b02e138a47..492d4a83dca0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu_pm.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu_pm.c
> > @@ -16,9 +16,11 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> > #include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/notifier.h>
> > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> > #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> >
> > @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ int cpu_pm_enter(void)
>
> This is called from a cpuidle driver's ->enter callback for the target state
> selected by the idle governor ->
>
> > {
> > int nr_calls;
> > int ret = 0;
> > + struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(smp_processor_id());
> >
> > ret = cpu_pm_notify(CPU_PM_ENTER, -1, &nr_calls);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -100,6 +103,9 @@ int cpu_pm_enter(void)
> > */
> > cpu_pm_notify(CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED, nr_calls - 1, NULL);
> >
> > + if (!ret && dev && dev->pm_domain)
> > + pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(dev);
>
> -> so this is going to invoke genpd_runtime_suspend() if the usage
> counter of dev is 0.
>
> That will cause cpu_power_down_ok() to be called (because this is
> a CPU domain) and that will walk the domain cpumask and compute the
> estimated idle duration as the minimum of tick_nohz_get_next_wakeup()
> values over the CPUs in that cpumask. [Note that the weight of the
> cpumask must be seriously limited for that to actually work, as this
> happens in the idle path.] Next, it will return "true" if it can
> find a domain state with residency within the estimated idle
> duration. [Note that this sort of overlaps with the idle governor's
> job.]
>
> Next, __genpd_runtime_suspend() will be invoked to run the device-specific
> callback if any [Note that this has to be suitable for the idle path if
> present.] and genpd_stop_dev() runs (which, again, may invoke a callback)
> and genpd_power_off() runs under the domain lock (which must be a spinlock
> then).
>
> > +
> > return ret;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_pm_enter);
> > @@ -118,6 +124,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_pm_enter);
> > */
> > int cpu_pm_exit(void)
> > {
> > + struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(smp_processor_id());
> > +
> > + if (dev && dev->pm_domain)
> > + pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > +
> > return cpu_pm_notify(CPU_PM_EXIT, -1, NULL);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_pm_exit);
> >
>
> And this is called on wakeup when the cpuidle driver's ->enter callback
> is about to return and it reverses the suspend flow (except that the
> governor doesn't need to be called now).
>
> Have I got that right?

Assuming that I have got that right, there are concerns, mostly regarding
patch [07/26], but I will reply to that directly.

The $subject patch is fine by me by itself, but it obviously depends on the
previous ones. Patches [01-02/26] are fine too, but they don't seem to be
particularly useful without the rest of the series.

As far as patches [10-26/26] go, I'd like to see some review comments and/or
tags from the people with vested interest in there, in particular from Daniel
on patch [12/26] and from Sudeep on the PSCI ones.

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-19 12:15    [W:0.101 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site