LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Osipenko <email@example.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <email@example.com>,
Viresh Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linux PM <email@example.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jonathan Hunter <email@example.com>,
Thierry Reding <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <email@example.com>,
Stephan Gerhold <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <email@example.com>,
Linux ARM <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: domains: Drop the performance state vote for a device at detach
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:11:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
06.09.2021 13:24, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 10:26, Dmitry Osipenko <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 03.09.2021 17:03, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 11:58, Dmitry Osipenko <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> 03.09.2021 11:22, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 08:01, Dmitry Osipenko <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 02.09.2021 13:16, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>>>>>> When a device is detached from its genpd, genpd loses track of the device,
>>>>>>> including its performance state vote that may have been requested for it.
>>>>>>> Rather than relying on the consumer driver to drop the performance state
>>>>>>> vote for its device, let's do it internally in genpd when the device is
>>>>>>> getting detached. In this way, we makes sure that the aggregation of the
>>>>>>> votes in genpd becomes correct.
>>>>>> This is a dangerous behaviour in a case where performance state
>>>>>> represents voltage. If hardware is kept active on detachment, say it's
>>>>>> always-on, then it may be a disaster to drop the voltage for the active
>>>>>> It's safe to drop performance state only if you assume that there is a
>>>>>> firmware behind kernel which has its own layer of performance management
>>>>>> and it will prevent the disaster by saying 'nope, I'm not doing this'.
>>>>>> The performance state should be persistent for a device and it should be
>>>>>> controlled in a conjunction with runtime PM. If platform wants to drop
>>>>>> performance state to zero on detachment, then this behaviour should be
>>>>>> specific to that platform.
>>>>> I understand your concern, but at this point, genpd can't help to fix this.
>>>>> Genpd has no information about the device, unless it's attached to it.
>>>>> For now and for these always on HWs, we simply need to make sure the
>>>>> device stays attached, in one way or the other.
>>>> This indeed requires to redesign GENPD to make it more coupled with a
>>>> device, but this is not a real problem for any of the current API users
>>>> AFAIK. Ideally the state should be persistent to make API more universal.
>>> Right. In fact this has been discussed in the past. In principle, the
>>> idea was to attach to genpd at device registration, rather than at
>>> driver probe.
>>> Although, this is not very easy to implement - and it seems like the
>>> churns to do, have not been really worth it. At least so far.
>>>> Since for today we assume that device should be suspended at the time of
>>>> the detachment (if the default OPP state isn't used), it may be better
>>>> to add a noisy warning message if pstate!=0, keeping the state untouched
>>>> if it's not zero.
>>> That would just be very silly in my opinion.
>>> When the device is detached (suspended or not), it may cause it's PM
>>> domain to be powered off - and there is really nothing we can do about
>>> that from the genpd point of view.
>>> As stated, the only current short term solution is to avoid detaching
>>> the device. Anything else, would just be papering of the issue.
>> What about to re-evaluate the performance state of the domain after
>> detachment instead of setting the state to zero?
> I am not suggesting to set the performance state of the genpd to zero,
> but to drop a potential vote for a performance state for the *device*
> that is about to be detached.
By removing the vote of the *device*, you will drop the performance
state of the genpd. If device is active and it's wrong to drop its
state, then you may cause the damage.
> Calling genpd_set_performance_state(dev, 0), during detach will have
> the same effect as triggering a re-evaluation of the performance state
> for the genpd, but after the detach.
>> This way PD driver may
>> take an action on detachment if performance isn't zero, before hardware
>> is crashed, for example it may emit a warning.
> Not sure I got that. Exactly when do you want to emit a warning and
> for what reason?
> Do you want to add a check somewhere to see if
> 'gpd_data->performance_state' is non zero - and then print a warning?
I want to check the 'gpd_data->performance_state' from the detachment
callback and emit the warning + lock further performance changes in the
PD driver since it's a error condition.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-02 10:16 [PATCH 0/3] PM: domains: Improvements for performance states in genpd Ulf Hansson
2021-09-02 10:16 ` [PATCH 1/3] PM: domains: Drop the performance state vote for a device at detach Ulf Hansson
2021-09-03 6:01 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-03 8:22 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-03 9:58 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-03 14:03 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-05 8:26 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-06 10:24 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-06 14:11 ` Dmitry Osipenko [this message]
2021-09-06 17:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-06 19:33 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-07 10:16 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-09 13:48 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-09 14:45 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-02 10:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] PM: domains: Restructure some code in __genpd_dev_pm_attach() Ulf Hansson
2021-09-02 10:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] PM: domains: Add a ->dev_get_performance_state() callback to genpd Ulf Hansson
2021-09-03 6:00 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-03 8:55 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-03 10:06 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-03 14:09 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-05 9:11 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-06 10:53 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-06 14:35 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-07 3:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-09-07 8:10 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-07 9:57 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-09 13:48 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2021-09-09 14:39 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-10 11:24 ` Dmitry Osipenko
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: domains: Drop the performance state vote for a device at detach' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).