On 1/19/2023 3:56 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 19/01/2023 22:18, Vivek Aknurwar wrote:
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for taking time to review the patch.
On 1/13/2023 5:40 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 14/01/2023 01:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 13/01/2023 22:07, Vivek Aknurwar wrote:
Currently framework sets bw even when init bw requirements are zero
during
provider registration, thus resulting bulk of set bw to hw.
Avoid this behaviour by skipping provider set bw calls if init bw
is zero.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Aknurwar <quic_viveka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/interconnect/core.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/core.c b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
index 25debde..43ed595 100644
--- a/drivers/interconnect/core.c
+++ b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
@@ -977,14 +977,17 @@ void icc_node_add(struct icc_node *node,
struct icc_provider *provider)
node->avg_bw = node->init_avg;
node->peak_bw = node->init_peak;
- if (provider->pre_aggregate)
- provider->pre_aggregate(node);
-
- if (provider->aggregate)
- provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg, node->init_peak,
- &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
+ if (node->avg_bw || node->peak_bw) {
+ if (provider->pre_aggregate)
+ provider->pre_aggregate(node);
+
+ if (provider->aggregate)
+ provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg,
node->init_peak,
+ &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
+ if (provider->set)
+ provider->set(node, node);
+ }
- provider->set(node, node);
node->avg_bw = 0;
node->peak_bw = 0;
I have the same comment/question for this patch that I had for the
qcom arch specific version of it. This patch seems to be doing at a
higher level what the patch below was doing at a lower level.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m0c90588d0d1e2ab88c39be8f5f3a8f0b61396349
what happens to earlier silicon - qcom silicon which previously made
explicit zero requests ?
This patch is to optimize and avoid all those bw 0 requests on each
node addition during probe (which results in rpmh remote calls) for
upcoming targets.
So why not change it just for rpmh ?
You are changing it for rpm here, as well as for Samsung and NXP
interconnects.
This isn't actually changing it for all providers. Only for those that
define the get_bw() callback. Right now that's only qcom/msm8974 and
imx/imx. If get_bw() isn't defined, then icc_node_add() defaults to
INT_MAX. So, the logical behavior in that case is unchanged. Which means
this isn't even changing the behavior for rpmh yet, either.
We're also working on changes to align our downstream, qcom-specific,
rpmh-specific sync-state approach with the common upstream approach.
Part of which includes adding a get_bw() callback for rpmh that only
returns non-zero BW for nodes already enabled from bootloaders or are
otherwise marked as critical for HLOS operation (i.e. keepalive).
Currently, the upstream rpmh driver doesn't define get_bw(), which means
the framework votes INT_MAX for everything even if most of the nodes
aren't needed yet.
Currently, with the upstream rpmh-based drivers this is just a
performance/power optimization issue. It doesn't cause any functional
failures. However, downstream we have additional nodes that use separate
BCM voters than just the "apps" voter. These secondary voters aren't
accessible when the providers probe, since they require additional
regulator dependencies to be met first. We rely on the client voting for
the required regulators before voting to interconnect for these nodes.
So, we need to prevent the framework from calling our set() callbacks
when adding these secondary nodes, otherwise it'll cause bus errors and
crash the kernel. It's not always safe to assume that every node is
immediately capable of being voted for when it's added.
We currently work around this by "stubbing" our pre_aggregate,
aggregate, and set() callbacks when adding the nodes and only set them
to the real callbacks after we've finished adding everything. But that
stops being a valid workaround when we move to the upstream sync-state
approach, since we're relying on the set() callback from icc_node_add()
for placing the initial proxy votes for "keepalive" and other nodes
already enable from boot.
I'm sure the secondary voters will make their way upstream some day, but
not clear when yet. There are no upstream drivers in a state ready to
use them yet anyway. But the other changes we're working on to add
get_bw() to icc-rpmh providers to reduce the number of unnecessary calls
during probe could go in sooner as an optimization.
It's not easy to implement this purely on the provider side, since we
can't just always ignore zero votes. We need to honor zero votes that
are made post-init so that things actually turn off. Thus, any logic
that short-circuits the zero requests would need to be done only for the
very first request. Each node would have to track if it's been called
once already. And we'd have to spread that logic across pre_aggregate,
aggregate, and set. There's isn't just one simple place to implement
this on the provider side. This is much more easily handled on the
framework side.
Taking rpm as an example, for certain generations of silicon we make an
explicit zero call.
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.BR.1.2.9-00810-8x09.0/drivers/platform/msm/msm_bus/msm_bus_bimc.c#L1367
Here's the original RPM commit that sets a zero
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/commit/d91d108656a7a44a6dfcfb318a25d39c5418e54b
>>>>
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m589e8280de470e038249bb362634221771d845dd
https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/3/1232
Isn't it a better idea to let lower layer drivers differentiate what
they do ?
AFAIU lower layer driver can/should not differentiate between normal
flow calls vs made as a result from probe/initialization of driver.
Hence even bw 0 request is honored as like client in general wish to
vote 0 as in an normal use case.
But surely if I vote zero, then I mean to vote zero ?
Do we know that for every architecture and for every different supported
that ignoring a zero vote is the right thing to do ?
I don't think we do know that.
Relying on the existing behavior of icc_node_add() calling set() when
the node's BW is already zero should be generally unnecessary. If the
node is already physically disabled in HW, then disabling again should
be a don't-care. And if the node is already physically enabled in HW,
then get_bw() should logically return something non-zero for it.
get_bw() is supposed to return the *current* BW. It's not always
possible to know exactly what the BW is, so often the distinction may
just be between zero and INT_MAX. But ultimately it would ideally return
the actual current BW vote, such that the initial votes placed by
icc_node_add() match the preexisting votes from boot and don't
unnecessarily enable or dramatically increase BW of many nodes
irrelevant for early kernel boot.
If the provider simply has no idea, then it can choose not to define the
get_bw() callback and the framework will assume INT_MAX for everything.
But if the provider wants to optimize the initial BW voting, it can
define the get_bw() callback to inform the framework which nodes are
already enabled and require proxy voting.
And relying on icc_node_add() calling set() for zero BW should also be
unnecessary for cleaning up nodes enabled from boot that are no longer
necessary. Because in either case if get_bw() returns non-zero or
get_bw() isn't defined at all, then the framework has non-zero initial
BW for them. And if no consumers explicitly vote for them, then they'll
be disabled in icc_sync_state(). Sync-state is the proper place to
disable resources no longer needed from boot.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230116132152.405535-1-konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx/
I think for older rpm this is a departure from long existing logic.
Maybe its entirely benign but, IMO you should be proposing this change
at the rpmh level only, not at the top level across multiple different
interconnect arches.
---
bod
