Re: [RFC 0/7] cpuidle: Add poking mechanism to support non-IPI wakeup

From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
	Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@nxp.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,
	Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
Cc: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] cpuidle: Add poking mechanism to support non-IPI wakeup
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:45:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <85c91392-9cbf-a5fc-b037-3d58f2b0ac9c@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1553702767.2561.40.camel@pengutronix.de>

On 27/03/2019 16:06, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 15:57 +0000 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>> On 27/03/2019 15:44, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Hi Abel,
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> What is the *exact* status of this thing? I have the ugly feeling that
>> the true workaround is just to disable cpuidle.
> 
> As far as I understand the erratum, the basic issue is that the GIC
> wake_request signals are not connected to the GPC (the CPU/peripheral
> power sequencer). The SPIs are routed through the GPC and thus are
> visible as wakeup sources, which is why the workaround of using an
> external SPI as wakeup trigger for the IPI works.

Are all SPIs connected to the GPC?

> 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 would indicate that not only cpuidle is broken with this, but
absolutely every interrupt that is not routed through the GPC.

> You probably know the GIC better than any of us to tell what this
> means.

Yeah, and that's a very unfortunate state of things... :-/

Thanks,

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