On 12/12/2022 9:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 18:36, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 22:06, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 02:40:55PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 17:55, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:00:51PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 23:57, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:36:58PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
>>>>>>> @Ulf, Akhil has a power-domain for a piece of hardware which may be
>>>>>>> voted active by multiple different subsystems (co-processors/execution
>>>>>>> contexts) in the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As such, during the powering down sequence we don't wait for the
>>>>>>> power-domain to turn off. But in the event of an error, the recovery
>>>>>>> mechanism relies on waiting for the hardware to settle in a powered off
>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proposal here is to use the reset framework to wait for this state
>>>>>>> to be reached, before continuing with the recovery mechanism in the
>>>>>>> client driver.
>>>>>> I tried to review the series (see my other replies), but I am not sure
>>>>>> I fully understand the consumer part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More exactly, when and who is going to pull the reset and at what point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given our other discussions on quirky behavior, do you have any
>>>>>>> input/suggestions on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some clients like adreno gpu driver would like to ensure that its gdsc
>>>>>>>> is collapsed at hardware during a gpu reset sequence. This is because it
>>>>>>>> has a votable gdsc which could be ON due to a vote from another subsystem
>>>>>>>> like tz, hyp etc or due to an internal hardware signal. To allow
>>>>>>>> this, gpucc driver can expose an interface to the client driver using
>>>>>>>> reset framework. Using this the client driver can trigger a polling within
>>>>>>>> the gdsc driver.
>>>>>>> @Akhil, this description is fairly generic. As we've reached the state
>>>>>>> where the hardware has settled and we return to the client, what
>>>>>>> prevents it from being powered up again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or is it simply a question of it hitting the powered-off state, not
>>>>>>> necessarily staying there?
>>>>>> Okay, so it's indeed the GPU driver that is going to assert/de-assert
>>>>>> the reset at some point. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems like a reasonable approach to me, even if it's a bit
>>>>>> unclear under what conditions that could happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Generally the disable-path of the power-domain does not check that the
>>>>> power-domain is actually turned off, because the status might indicate
>>>>> that the hardware is voting for the power-domain to be on.
>>>> Is there a good reason why the HW needs to vote too, when the GPU
>>>> driver is already in control?
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps that depends on the running use case?
>>>>
>>>>> As part of the recovery of the GPU after some fatal fault, the GPU
>>>>> driver does something which will cause the hardware votes for the
>>>>> power-domain to be let go, and then the driver does pm_runtime_put().
>>>> Okay. That "something", sounds like a device specific setting for the
>>>> corresponding gdsc, right?
>>>>
>>>> So somehow the GPU driver needs to manage that setting, right?
>>>>
>>>>> But in this case the GPU driver wants to ensure that the power-domain is
>>>>> actually powered down, before it does pm_runtime_get() again. To ensure
>>>>> that the hardware lost its state...
>>>> I see.
>>>>
>>>>> The proposal here is to use a reset to reach into the power-domain
>>>>> provider and wait for the hardware to be turned off, before the GPU
>>>>> driver attempts turning the power-domain on again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, there is no reset. This is a hack to make a normally
>>>>> asynchronous pd.power_off() to be synchronous in this particular case.
>>>> Alright, assuming I understood your clarifications above correctly
>>>> (thanks!), I think I have got a much better picture now.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than abusing the reset interface, I think we should manage this
>>>> through the genpd's power on/off notifiers (GENPD_NOTIFY_OFF). The GPU
>>>> driver should register its corresponding device for them
>>>> (dev_pm_genpd_add_notifier()).
>>>>
>>>> The trick however, is to make the behaviour of the power-domain for
>>>> the gdsc (the genpd->power_off() callback) conditional on whether the
>>>> HW is configured to vote or not. If the HW can vote, it should not
>>>> poll for the state - and vice versa when the HW can't vote.
>>>>
>>> Per Akhil's description I misunderstood who the other voters are; but
>>> either way it's not the same "HW configured" mechanism as the one we're
>>> already discussing.
>> Okay, so this is another thing then.
>>
>>>
>>> But if we based on similar means could control if the power_off() ops
>>> should be blocking, waiting for the status indication to show that the
>>> hardware is indeed powered down, I think this would meet the needs.
>> Right.
>>
>>> And GENPD_NOTIFY_OFF seems to provide the notification that it was
>>> successful (i.e. happened within the timeout etc).
>>>
>>>> Would this work?
>>>>
>>> If we can control the behavior of the genpd, I think it would.
>> Okay, it seems like we need a new dev_pm_genpd_* interface that
>> consumers can call to instruct the genpd provider, that its
>> ->power_off() callback needs to temporarily switch to become
>> synchronous.
>>
>> I guess this could be useful for other similar cases too, where the
>> corresponding PM domain isn't actually being powered off, but rather
>> just voted for to become powered off, thus relying on the HW to do the
>> aggregation.
>>
>> In any case, I am still a bit skeptical of the reset approach, as is
>> being suggested in the $subject series. Even if it's rather nice and
>> clean (but somewhat abusing the interface), it looks like there will
>> be synchronization problems between the calls to the
>> pm_runtime_put_sync() and reset_control_reset() in the GPU driver. The
>> "reset" may actually already have happened when the call to
>> reset_control_reset() is done, so we may fail to detect the power
>> collapse, right!?
>>
>> Let me cook a patch for the new genpd interface that I have in mind,
>> then we can see how that plays out together with the other parts. I
>> will post it on Monday!
> Below is the genpd patch that I had in mind.
>
> As I stated above, the GPU driver would need to register for genpd's
> power on/off notificers (GENPD_NOTIFY_OFF). Then it should call the
> new dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff() and finally pm_runtime_put().
> Moreover, when the GPU driver receives the GENPD_NOTIFY_OFF
> notification, it should probably just kick a completion variable,
> allowing the path that calls pm_runtime_put() to wait for the
> notification to arrive.
>
> On the genpd provider side, the ->power_off() callback should be
> updated to check the new genpd->synced_poweroff variable, to indicate
> whether it should poll for power collapse or not.
>
> I think this should work, but if you still prefer to use the "reset"
> approach, that's entirely up to you to decide.
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
> -----
>
> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 16:08:05 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] PM: domains: Allow a genpd consumer to require a synced power
> off
>
> TODO: Write commit message
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/pm_domain.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index b46aa490b4cd..3402b2ea7f61 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -494,6 +494,27 @@ void dev_pm_genpd_set_next_wakeup(struct device
> *dev, ktime_t next)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_genpd_set_next_wakeup);
>
> +/**
> + * dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff - Next power off should be synchronous
> + *
> + * @dev: Device to handle
> + *
> + * TODO: Add description
> + */
> +void dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd;
> +
> + genpd = dev_to_genpd_safe(dev);
> + if (!genpd)
> + return;
> +
> + genpd_lock(genpd);
> + genpd->synced_poweroff = true;
> + genpd_unlock(genpd);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff);
> +
> static int _genpd_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, bool timed)
> {
> unsigned int state_idx = genpd->state_idx;
> @@ -588,6 +609,7 @@ static int _genpd_power_off(struct
> generic_pm_domain *genpd, bool timed)
> out:
> raw_notifier_call_chain(&genpd->power_notifiers, GENPD_NOTIFY_OFF,
> NULL);
> + genpd->synced_poweroff = false;
> return 0;
> busy:
> raw_notifier_call_chain(&genpd->power_notifiers, GENPD_NOTIFY_ON, NULL);
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> index ebc351698090..09c6c67a4896 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> unsigned int prepared_count; /* Suspend counter of prepared
> devices */
> unsigned int performance_state; /* Aggregated max performance state */
> cpumask_var_t cpus; /* A cpumask of the attached CPUs */
> + bool synced_poweroff; /* A consumer needs a synced poweroff */
> int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> struct raw_notifier_head power_notifiers; /* Power on/off notifiers */
Thanks a lot, Ulf. I will try to prototype rest of the changes on top this.
-Akhil.
