linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>,
	Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
	lsrao@codeaurora.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain idle states converter
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:52:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoZ+QQFdG3yQ5wGpg2Z5c9WksUhresGz02o3HVrGt1UhQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200207144850.GA18655@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 15:48, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:32:28PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > I understand the arguments for using PC vs OSI and agree with it. But
> > > > what in PSCI is against Linux knowing when the last core is powering
> > > > down when the PSCI is configured to do only Platform Cordinated.
> > >
> > > Nothing :D. But knowing the evolution and reasons for adding OSI in the
> > > PSCI specification and having argued about benefits of OSI over PC for
> > > years and finally when we have it in mainline, this argument of using
> > > PC for exact reasons why OSI evolved is something I can't understand
> > > and I am confused.
> > >
> > > > There should not be any objection to drivers knowing when all the cores
> > > > are powered down, be it reference counting CPU PM notifications or using
> > > > a cleaner approach like this where GendPD framwork does everything
> > > > cleanly and gives a nice callback. ARM architecture allows for different
> > > > aspects of CPU access be handled at different levels. I see this as an
> > > > extension of that approach.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One thing that was repeatedly pointed out during OSI patch review was no
> > > extra overhead for PC mode where firmware can make decisions. So, just
> > > use OSI now and let us be done with this discussion of OSI vs PC. If PC
> > > is what you think you need for future, we can revert all OSI changes and
> > > start discussing again :-)
> >
> > Just to make it clear, I fully agree with you in regards to overhead
> > for PC-mode. This is especially critical for ARM SoCs with lots of
> > cores, I assume.
> >
> > However, the overhead you refer to, is *only* going to be present in
> > case when the DTS has the hierarchical CPU topology description with
> > "power-domains". Because, that is *optional* to use, I am expecting
> > only those SoC/platforms that needs to manage last-man activities to
> > use this layout, the others will remain unaffected.
>
> In PC mode not only there is no need but it is wrong to manage
> any last-man activity in the kernel. I wonder why we are still
> talking about this to be honest.

I guess the discussion is here because there is a use case to consider now.

For sure, we agree on what is the best solution. But this is rather
about what can we do to improve the current situation, if we should do
anything.

>
> Code to handle PSCI platform coordinated mode has been/is in
> the kernel today and that's all is needed according to the PSCI
> specifications.

PSCI specifies CPU power management, not SoC power management. If
these things were completely decoupled, I would agree with you, but
that's not the case. Maybe SCMI, etc, helps with this in future.

Anyway, my fear is that not many ARM vendors implements OSI support,
but still they have "last-man-activities" to deal with. This is not
only QCOM.

I guess an option would be to add OSI support to the public ARM
Trusted Firmware, then we could more easily point to that - rather
than trying to mitigate the problem on the kernel side.

Kind regards
Uffe

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-07 15:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-03 13:35 [PATCH v3 0/7] Add RSC power domain support Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] drivers: qcom: rpmh: fix macro to accept NULL argument Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] drivers: qcom: rpmh: remove rpmh_flush export Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: Add RSC power domain specifier Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Add RSC power domain support Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain idle states converter Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 17:08   ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-04  4:52     ` Maulik Shah
2020-02-04 15:21       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-05 12:23         ` Maulik Shah
2020-02-05 14:06           ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-05 15:55             ` Ulf Hansson
2020-02-05 16:18               ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-06  8:45                 ` Ulf Hansson
2020-02-06 20:45                   ` Lina Iyer
2020-02-07 11:20                     ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-07 12:32                       ` Ulf Hansson
2020-02-07 14:48                         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2020-02-07 15:52                           ` Ulf Hansson [this message]
2020-02-07 16:15                             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-08 10:25                               ` Ulf Hansson
2020-02-10 10:31                                 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-07 16:05                         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-06 21:11             ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-02-07 11:25               ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Add cpuidle low power states Maulik Shah
2020-02-04 23:15   ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2020-02-05 12:07     ` Maulik Shah
2020-02-03 13:35 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Convert to the hierarchical CPU topology layout Maulik Shah

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=CAPDyKFoZ+QQFdG3yQ5wGpg2Z5c9WksUhresGz02o3HVrGt1UhQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=agross@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=david.brown@linaro.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
    --cc=ilina@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=lsrao@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=mkshah@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).