Re: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device

[Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>]

On 11/28/2017 05:13 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Stephen Boyd<sboyd@codeaurora.org>  wrote:
>> On 11/15, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Rob Clark<robdclark@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Vivek Gautam
>>>> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>  wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Rob Clark<robdclark@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Sricharan R<sricharan@codeaurora.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>>>>>>>    static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>>>>>>>                     size_t size)
>>>>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>>>> -    struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>>>>>>> +    struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>>>>>>> +    struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>>>>>>> +    size_t ret;
>>>>>>>>>>          if (!ops)
>>>>>>>>>>            return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>    -    return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>>>>>>>>>> +    pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>>>>>>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
>>>>>>>>> to recall that being a problem before.
>>>>>>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
>>>>>>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like we don't  need locks here anymore?
>>>>>>>   Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
>>>>>>>   from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
>>>>>>>   should have enabled the pm ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are a bunch of scenarios where unmap can happen with
>>>>>> disabled master (but not in atomic context).
>>>>> I would like to understand whether there is a situation where an unmap is
>>>>> called in atomic context without an enabled master?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say we have the case where all the unmap calls in atomic context happen
>>>>> only from the master's context (in which case the device link should
>>>>> take care of
>>>>> the pm state of smmu), and the only unmap that happen in non-atomic context
>>>>> is the one with master disabled. In such a case doesn it make sense to
>>>>> distinguish
>>>>> the atomic/non-atomic context and add pm_runtime_get_sync()/put_sync() only
>>>>> for the non-atomic context since that would be the one with master disabled.
>>>>>
>>>> At least drm/msm needs to hold obj->lock (a mutex) in unmap, so it
>>>> won't unmap anything in atomic ctx (but it can unmap w/ master
>>>> disabled).  I can't really comment about other non-gpu drivers.  It
>>>> seems like a reasonable constraint that either master is enabled or
>>>> not in atomic ctx.
>>>>
>>>> Currently we actually wrap unmap w/ pm_runtime_get/put_sync(), but I'd
>>>> like to drop that to avoid powering up the gpu.
>>> Since the deferring the TLB maintenance doesn't look like the best approach [1],
>>> how about if we try to power-up only the smmu from different client
>>> devices such as,
>>> GPU in the unmap path. Then we won't need to add pm_runtime_get/put() calls in
>>> arm_smmu_unmap().
>>>
>>> The client device can use something like - pm_runtime_get_supplier() since
>>> we already have the device link in place with this patch series. This should
>>> power-on the supplier (which is smmu) without turning on the consumer
>>> (such as GPU).
>>>
>>> pm_runtime_get_supplier() however is not exported at this moment.
>>> Will it be useful to export this API and use it in the drivers.
>>>
>> I'm not sure pm_runtime_get_supplier() is correct either. That
>> feels like we're relying on the GPU driver knowing the internal
>> details of how the device links are configured.
>>
> what does pm_runtime_get_supplier() do if IOMMU driver hasn't setup
> device-link?

It will be a no-op.

> If it is a no-op, then I guess the GPU driver calling
> pm_runtime_get_supplier() seems reasonable, and less annoying than
> having special cases in pm_resume path.. I don't feel too bad about
> having "just in case" get/put_supplier() calls in the unmap path.
>
> Also, presumably we still want to avoid powering up GPU even if we
> short circuit the firmware loading and rest of "booting up the GPU"..
> since presumably the GPU draws somewhat more power than the IOMMU..
> having the pm_resume/suspend path know about the diff between waking
> up / suspending the iommu and itself doesn't really feel less-bad than
> just doing "just in case" get/put_supplier() calls.

If it sounds okay, then i can send a patch that exports the
pm_runtime_get/put_suppliers() APIs.


Best regards
Vivek

> BR,
> -R
>
>> Is there some way to have the GPU driver know in its runtime PM
>> resume hook that it doesn't need to be powered on because it
>> isn't actively drawing anything or processing commands? I'm
>> thinking of the code calling pm_runtime_get() as proposed around
>> the IOMMU unmap path in the GPU driver and then having the
>> runtime PM resume hook in the GPU driver return some special
>> value to indicate that it didn't really resume because it didn't
>> need to and to treat the device as runtime suspended but not
>> return an error. Then the runtime PM core can keep track of that
>> and try to power the GPU on again when another pm_runtime_get()
>> is called on the GPU device.
>>
>> This keeps the consumer API the same, always pm_runtime_get(),
>> but leaves the device driver logic of what to do when the GPU
>> doesn't need to power on to the runtime PM hook where the driver
>> has all the information.
>>
>> --
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message tomajordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info athttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project