21.02.2020 23:02, Daniel Lezcano пишет:
> On 21/02/2020 19:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 21.02.2020 20:36, Daniel Lezcano пишет:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 07:56:51PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Hello Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> 21.02.2020 18:43, Daniel Lezcano пишет:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:51:26AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>> It is possible that something may go wrong with the secondary CPU, in that
>>>>>> case it is much nicer to get a dump of the flow-controller state before
>>>>>> hanging machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Jasper Korten <jja2000@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Tested-by: David Heidelberg <david@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>>> +static int tegra20_wait_for_secondary_cpu_parking(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + unsigned int retries = 3;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + while (retries--) {
>>>>>> + ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_ms(ktime_get(), 500);
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops I missed this one. Do not use ktime_get() in this code path, use jiffies.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please explain what benefits jiffies have over the ktime_get()?
>>>
>>> ktime_get() is very slow, jiffies is updated every tick.
>>
>> But how jiffies are supposed to be updated if interrupts are disabled?
>
> Yeah, other cpus must not be idle in this.
Okay, then jiffies can't be used here because this function is used for
the coupled / power-gated state only. All CPUs are idling in this state.
>> Aren't jiffies actually slower than ktime_get() because jiffies are
>> updating every 10/1ms (depending on CONFIG_HZ)?
>
> They are no slower, they have a lower resolution which is 10ms or 4ms.
>
> Given the 500ms timeout, it is fine.
>
>> We're kinda interesting here in getting into deep-idling state as quick
>> as possible. I was checking how much time takes the busy-loop below and
>> it takes ~40-150us in average, which is good enough.
>
> ktime_get() gets a seq lock and it is very slow.
Since all CPUs are idling here, the locking isn't a problem.
The wait_for_secondary_cpu_parking() function is called on CPU0, it
waits for the secondary CPUs to enter into safe-state before CPU0 could
power-gate the whole CPU cluster.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * The primary CPU0 core shall wait for the secondaries
>>>>>> + * shutdown in order to power-off CPU's cluster safely.
>>>>>> + * The timeout value depends on the current CPU frequency,
>>>>>> + * it takes about 40-150us in average and over 1000us in
>>>>>> + * a worst case scenario.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + do {
>>>>>> + if (tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready())
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + } while (ktime_before(ktime_get(), timeout));
>>>>>
>>>>> So this loop will aggresively call tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() and retry 3
>>>>> times. The tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() function can be called thoushand of times
>>>>> here but the function will hang 1.5s :/
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> while (retries--i && !tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready())
>>>>> udelay(100);
>>>>>
>>>>> So <retries> calls to tegra_cpu_rail_off_ready() and 100us x <retries> maximum
>>>>> impact.
>>>> But udelay() also results into CPU spinning in a busy-loop, and thus,
>>>> what's the difference?
>>>
>>> busy looping instead of register reads with all the hardware things involved behind.
>>
>> Please notice that this code runs only on an older Cortex-A9/A15, which
>> doesn't support WFE for the delaying, and thus, CPU always busy-loops
>> inside udelay().
>>
>> What about if I'll add cpu_relax() to the loop? Do you think it it could
>> have any positive effect?
>
> I think udelay() has a call to cpu_relax().
Yes, my point is that udelay() doesn't bring much benefit for us here
because:
1. we want to enter into power-gated state as quick as possible and
udelay() just adds an unnecessary delay
2. udelay() spins in a busy-loop until delay is expired, just like we're
doing it in this function already
