David, Rajendra,
On 14 June 2018 at 20:17, David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Rajendra,
>
> On 06/13/2018 11:54 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On 06/14/2018 06:02 AM, David Collins wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2018 09:40 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> ...
>>>> +static int rpmhpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rpmhpd *pd = domain_to_rpmhpd(domain);
>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_lock(&rpmhpd_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (pd->level[0] == 0)
>>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 0);
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that we want to have the 'pd->level[0] == 0' check,
>>> especially when considering aggregation with the peer pd. I understand
>>> its intention to try to keep enable state and level setting orthogonal.
>>> However, as it stands now, the final request sent to hardware would differ
>>> depending upon the order of calls. Consider the following example.
>>>
>>> Initial state:
>>> pd->level[0] == 0
>>> pd->corner = 5, pd->enabled = true, pd->active_only = false
>>> pd->peer->corner = 7, pd->peer->enabled = true, pd->peer->active_only = true
>>>
>>> Outstanding requests:
>>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7, RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7, RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 5
>>>
>>> Case A:
>>> 1. set pd->corner = 6
>>> --> new value request: RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>> --> duplicate value requests: RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7,
>>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>>> 2. power_off pd->peer
>>> --> no requests
>>
>> I am not sure why there would be no requests, since we do end up aggregating
>> with pd->peer->corner = 0.
>> So the final state would be
>>
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
>
> Argh, my example was ruined by a one character typo. I meant to have:
>
> Initial state:
> pd->level[0] != 0
>
>
>>>
>>> Final state:
>>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>>
>>> Case B:
>>> 1. power_off pd->peer
>>> --> no requests
>>
>> Here it would be again be aggregation based on pd->peer->corner = 0
>> so,
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(5, 0) = 5
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 5
>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(5, 0) = 5
>>
>>> 2. set pd->corner = 6
>>> --> new value requests: RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 6,
>>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6, RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>>
>>> Final state:
>>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>
>> correct,
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
>>
>>>
>>> Without the check, Linux would vote for the lowest supported level when
>>> power_off is called. This seems semantically reasonable given that the
>>> consumer is ok with the power domain going fully off and that would be the
>>> closest that we can get.
>>
>> So are you suggesting I replace
>>
>>>> + if (pd->level[0] == 0)
>>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 0);
>>
>> with
>>
>>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, pd->level[0]);
>
> Yes, this is the modification that I'm requesting.
>
>
>> I can see what you said above makes sense but if its
>>> Initial state:
>>> pd->level[0] != 0
>>
>> Was that what you meant?
>
> Yes.
Apologize for jumping into the discussion.
I have a couple of ideas, that may simplify/improve things related to the above.
1) Would it be easier if genpd calls ->set_performance_state(0) before
it is about to call the ->power_off() callback? Actually Viresh wanted
that from the start, but I thought it was useless.
2) When device are becoming runtime suspended, the ->runtime_suspend()
callback of genpd is invoked (genpd_runtime_suspend()). However, in
there we don't care to re-evaluate the votes on the performance level,
but instead rely on the corresponding driver for the device to drop
the vote. I think it would be a good idea of managing this internally
in genpd instead, thus, depending on if the aggregated vote can be
decreased we should call ->set_performance_state(new-vote). Of
course, once the device get runtime resumed, the votes needs to be
restored for the device.
What do you think?
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
