From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755520AbcI2QIz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:08:55 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56284 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753890AbcI2QIu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:08:50 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:08:47 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        wxt@rock-chips.com, dianders@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in
 suspend
Message-ID: <20160929170847.1227a312@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost>
References: <20160916054917.16930-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
        <57DBA81F.2060404@arm.com>
        <20160919231441.GA60928@google.com>
        <57E0E97B.5000106@arm.com>
        <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost>
Organization: ARM Ltd
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:23:11 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

Hi Brian,

> Hi Marc,
> 
> Thanks again for the help. I was checking with Rockchip on the details.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:07AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > The counter is allowed to be clocked at a different rate, as long as it
> > is incremented by the frequency ratio on each tick of the new frequency.
> > In your case, the counter should increment by 750 on each tick of the
> > 32kHz clock. If the rk3399 implementation doesn't do this, then this is
> > a bug, and we need a quirk to work around it.  
> 
> I had hope that we could find a switch that would do the above for
> rk3399, since other parts of the system (e.g., the PMU itself) support
> switching from the 24MHz to 32KHz clock, but Rockchip confirmed that it
> is indeed a HW quirk that the arch timer's counter does not support
> clocking out ticks based on the 32KHz clock. So I'm planning to send a
> v2 that adds a "arm,no-tick-in-suspend" property.

Fair enough.

> 
> <Begin side note>
> rk3288 (ARMv7 system widely used for our Chromebooks) has the same
> issue, except the kernel we're using for production (based on v3.14)
> doesn't have the following commit, which stopped utilizing the RTC:
> 
> commit 0fa88cb4b82b5cf7429bc1cef9db006ca035754e
> Author: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@linaro.org>
> Date:   Wed Apr 1 20:34:38 2015 -0700
> 
>     time, drivers/rtc: Don't bother with rtc_resume() for the nonstop clocksource
> 
> And any mainline testing on rk3288 doesn't see the problem, because
> mainline doesn't support its lowest-power sleep modes well enough (see
> ROCKCHIP_ARM_OFF_LOGIC_DEEP in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c).

Arghh... So even my favourite Chromebook (from which I'm typing this
email) is affected? Not very nice...

> <End side note>
> 
> > Note that such a quirk will have some other impacts, such as the
> > gettimeofday implementation in the VDSO (which relies on the counter
> > making forward progress). There could be other issues in the timer
> > subsystem as well... This doesn't look like a pleasant thing to fix.  
> 
> How sure are you of these problems? I'm a bit new to the kernel
> timekeeping subsystem, but doesn't this kind of code already have to
> handle time adjustments like this when reprogramming the system time
> (settimeofday())? And might we be covered for the suspend/resume case
> when we allow the kernel to fall back to the RTC instead, which adjusts
> the sleep delta with timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64()? And (weaker
> evidence here) we haven't seen problems on rk3288 so far, at least
> without the above referenced rtc commit 0fa88cb4b82. But admittedly
> there are some differences between arch/{arm,arm64}/.

The 32bit port only gained a VDSO recently (3.14 doesn't have it), and
mainline doesn't switch the counter off, as you noted above.

As for the 64bit kernel, it would be interesting to verify that on
resume, the VDSO does return the right (corrected) value, and not
something stale.

Thanks,

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

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:08:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in
 suspend
In-Reply-To: <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost>
References: <20160916054917.16930-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
 <57DBA81F.2060404@arm.com> <20160919231441.GA60928@google.com>
 <57E0E97B.5000106@arm.com> <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost>
Message-ID: <20160929170847.1227a312@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:23:11 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

Hi Brian,

> Hi Marc,
> 
> Thanks again for the help. I was checking with Rockchip on the details.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:07AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > The counter is allowed to be clocked at a different rate, as long as it
> > is incremented by the frequency ratio on each tick of the new frequency.
> > In your case, the counter should increment by 750 on each tick of the
> > 32kHz clock. If the rk3399 implementation doesn't do this, then this is
> > a bug, and we need a quirk to work around it.  
> 
> I had hope that we could find a switch that would do the above for
> rk3399, since other parts of the system (e.g., the PMU itself) support
> switching from the 24MHz to 32KHz clock, but Rockchip confirmed that it
> is indeed a HW quirk that the arch timer's counter does not support
> clocking out ticks based on the 32KHz clock. So I'm planning to send a
> v2 that adds a "arm,no-tick-in-suspend" property.

Fair enough.

> 
> <Begin side note>
> rk3288 (ARMv7 system widely used for our Chromebooks) has the same
> issue, except the kernel we're using for production (based on v3.14)
> doesn't have the following commit, which stopped utilizing the RTC:
> 
> commit 0fa88cb4b82b5cf7429bc1cef9db006ca035754e
> Author: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@linaro.org>
> Date:   Wed Apr 1 20:34:38 2015 -0700
> 
>     time, drivers/rtc: Don't bother with rtc_resume() for the nonstop clocksource
> 
> And any mainline testing on rk3288 doesn't see the problem, because
> mainline doesn't support its lowest-power sleep modes well enough (see
> ROCKCHIP_ARM_OFF_LOGIC_DEEP in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c).

Arghh... So even my favourite Chromebook (from which I'm typing this
email) is affected? Not very nice...

> <End side note>
> 
> > Note that such a quirk will have some other impacts, such as the
> > gettimeofday implementation in the VDSO (which relies on the counter
> > making forward progress). There could be other issues in the timer
> > subsystem as well... This doesn't look like a pleasant thing to fix.  
> 
> How sure are you of these problems? I'm a bit new to the kernel
> timekeeping subsystem, but doesn't this kind of code already have to
> handle time adjustments like this when reprogramming the system time
> (settimeofday())? And might we be covered for the suspend/resume case
> when we allow the kernel to fall back to the RTC instead, which adjusts
> the sleep delta with timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64()? And (weaker
> evidence here) we haven't seen problems on rk3288 so far, at least
> without the above referenced rtc commit 0fa88cb4b82. But admittedly
> there are some differences between arch/{arm,arm64}/.

The 32bit port only gained a VDSO recently (3.14 doesn't have it), and
mainline doesn't switch the counter off, as you noted above.

As for the 64bit kernel, it would be interesting to verify that on
resume, the VDSO does return the right (corrected) value, and not
something stale.

Thanks,

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