lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/7] cpuidle: Add poking mechanism to support non-IPI wakeup
From
Date
On 27/03/2019 18:40, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 17:45 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 27/03/2019 16:06, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 15:57 +0000 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>>> On 27/03/2019 15:44, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 13:21 +0000 schrieb Abel Vesa:
>>>>>> This work is a workaround I'm looking into (more as a background task)
>>>>>> in order to add support for cpuidle on i.MX8MQ based platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main idea here is getting around the missing GIC wake_request signal
>>>>>> (due to integration design issue) by waking up a each individual core through
>>>>>> some dedicated SW power-up bits inside the power controller (GPC) right before
>>>>>> every IPI is requested for that each individual core.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a general comment, without going into the details of this series:
>>>>> this issue is not only affecting IPIs, but also MSIs terminated at the
>>>>> GIC. Currently MSIs are terminated at the PCIe core, but terminating
>>>>> them at the GIC is clearly preferable, as this allows assigning CPU
>>>>> affinity to individual MSIs and lowers IRQ service overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the consequences are for upstream Linux support yet,
>>>>> but we should keep in mind that having a workaround for IPIs is only
>>>>> solving part of the issue.
>>>>
>>>> If this erratum is affecting more than just IPIs, then indeed I don't
>>>> see how this patch series solves anything.
>>>>
>>>> But the erratum documentation seems to imply that only SGIs are
>>>> affected, and goes as far as suggesting to use an external interrupt
>>>> would solve it. How comes this is not the case? Or is it that anything
>>>> directly routed to a redistributor is also affected? This would break
>>>> LPIs (and thus MSIs) and PPIs (the CPU timer, among others).
>>>
>>> Anything that isn't visible to the GPC and requires the GIC
>>> wake_request signal to behave as specified is broken by this erratum.
>>
>> I really wonder how a timer interrupt (a PPI, hence not routed through
>> the GPC) can wake up the CPU in this case. It really feels like
>> something like "program CNTV_CVAL_EL0 to expire at some later point;
>> WFI" could result in the CPU going to a deep sleep state, and not
>> wake-up at all.
>
> This is already a common issue for cpuidle implementions handled by the
> "local-timer-stop" property. imx has other timer blocks in the SOC,
> they generate SPIs which are connected to GPC.
>
>> This would indicate that not only cpuidle is broken with this, but
>> absolutely every interrupt that is not routed through the GPC.
>
> Yes, cpuidle is broken for irqs not routed through GPC. However:
>
> * All SPIs are connected to GPC in a 1:1 mapping
> * This series deals with SGIs
> * The timer PPIs are not required; covered by local-timer-stop
> * LPIs are currently unused (I understand imx-pci uses SPI by default
> from Lucas)
>
> Anything missing?
>
> My understanding is that this wake request feature via GIC is new in v3
> and this is maybe why HW team missed it during integration. Older
> imx6/7 has GICv2 and has deep idle states which always rely on GPC to
> wakeup so the approach can work.

Certainly the approach can work. The question is whether we want to
support this in a mainline kernel, spreading random hooks in the generic
code and adding a firmware interface on top of that.

By all accounts, this HW is broken. You can indeed impose limitations
(dumb down PCI, mandate the use of a broadcast timer), or you can just
flag cpuidle as unsupported on this HW. My vote is on the latter.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-28 11:36    [W:0.118 / U:4.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site