LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
	Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: domains: Drop the performance state vote for a device at detach
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 22:33:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ee1a2eb-67d7-dcad-6039-05129d3822ec@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqqdgr2DHf1Fidj3ksPHe3XgwvCo8SbQ2Cmnc5y1PDvMw@mail.gmail.com>

06.09.2021 20:34, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 16:11, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 06.09.2021 13:24, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>> On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 10:26, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 03.09.2021 17:03, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 11:58, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 03.09.2021 11:22, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 08:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.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
>>>>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> Alright, so if I understand correctly, you intend to do the check for
> the "error condition" of the device in the genpd->detach_dev()
> callback?

Yes

> What exactly do you intend to do beyond this point, if you detect the
> "error condition"? Locking further changes of the performance state
> seems fragile too, especially if some other device/driver requires the
> performance state to be raised. It sounds like you simply need to call
> BUG_ON() then?

I can lock it to high performance state.

> Also note that a very similar problem exists, *before* the device gets
> attached in the first place. More precisely, nothing prevents the
> performance state from being set to a non-compatible value for an
> always-on HW/device that hasn't been attached yet. So maybe you need
> to set the maximum performance state at genpd initializations, then
> use the ->sync_state() callback to very that all consumers have been
> attached to the genpd provider, before allowing the state to be
> changed/lowered?

That is already done by the PD driver.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c#L3790

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-06 19:33 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
2021-09-06 17:34                 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-06 19:33                   ` Dmitry Osipenko [this message]
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

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7ee1a2eb-67d7-dcad-6039-05129d3822ec@gmail.com \
    --to=digetx@gmail.com \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=stephan@gerhold.net \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: domains: Drop the performance state vote for a device at detach' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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).