Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:43:20 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuidle: exynos: add coupled cpuidle support for Exynos4210 |
| |
On 11/12/2014 04:13 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >
Hi Bartlomiej,
[ cut ]
>>> - using arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask() instead of dsb_sev() >>> (this matches CPU hotplug code in arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c) >> >> I am curious. You experienced very rare hangs after running the tests a >> few hours, right ? Is the SEV replaced by the IPI solving the issue ? If >> yes, how did you catch it ? > > Rare hangs showed up after about 30-40 minutes of testing with the attached > app and script (running of "./cpuidle_state1_test.sh script 2 500" has never > completed on the umodified driver). > > The problem turned out to be in the following loop waiting for CPU1 to get > stuck in the BOOT ROM: > > /* > * Wait for cpu1 to get stuck in the boot rom > */ > while ((__raw_readl(BOOT_VECTOR) != 0) && > !atomic_read(&cpu1_wakeup)) > cpu_relax(); > > [ Removal of the loop fixed the problem. ]
Just for my personal information, do you know why ?
> Using the SEV instead of the IPI was not a issue but it was changed to > match the existing Exynos platform code (exynos_boot_secondary() in > arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c) and as preparation for Exynos4412 (quad > core) support.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the info.
[ cut ]
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE >>> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210")) >>> + exynos_cpuidle.dev.platform_data = &cpuidle_coupled_exynos_data; >>> +#endif >> >> You should not add those #ifdef. > > Without those #ifdef I get: > > LD init/built-in.o > arch/arm/mach-exynos/built-in.o: In function `exynos_dt_machine_init': > /home/bzolnier/sam/linux-sprc/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c:334: undefined reference to `cpuidle_coupled_exynos_data' > make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 > > when CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND is disabled.
Here, we are introducing some dependencies I tried to drop in the different drivers.
I looked more closely at the code and especially the 'cpuidle_coupled_exynos_data'. I don't think it is worth to have it because it adds more complexity and you have to define this structure to be visible from the drivers/cpuidle files.
I suggest you create an simple function in "pm.c"
int exynos_coupled_aftr(int cpu) { pre_enter...
if (!cpu) cpu0_enter_aftr() else cpu1_powerdown()
post_enter... }
and in the cpuidle driver itself, you just use the already existing anonymous callback 'exynos_enter_aftr' (and mutate it to conform the parameters).
You won't have to share any structure between the arch code and the cpuidle driver.
>>> if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210") || >>> of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4212") || >>> (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412") && >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
[ cut ]
>>> - exynos_enter_aftr = (void *)(pdev->dev.platform_data); >>> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210")) { >>> + exynos_cpuidle_pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data; >>> + >>> + exynos_idle_driver.states[1].enter = >>> + exynos_enter_coupled_lowpower; >>> + exynos_idle_driver.states[1].exit_latency = 5000; >>> + exynos_idle_driver.states[1].target_residency = 10000; >>> + exynos_idle_driver.states[1].flags |= CPUIDLE_FLAG_COUPLED | >>> + CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP; >> >> I tried to remove those dynamic state allocation everywhere in the >> different drivers. I would prefer to have another cpuidle_driver to be >> registered with its states instead of overwriting the existing idle state. >> >> struct cpuidle_driver exynos4210_idle_driver = { >> .name = "exynos4210_idle", >> .owner = THIS_MODULE, >> .states = { >> [0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE, >> [1] = { >> .enter = exynos_enter_coupled_lowpower, >> .exit_latency = 5000, >> .target_residency = 10000, >> .flags = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID | >> CPUIDLE_FLAG_COUPLED | >> CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP, >> .name = "C1", >> .desc = "ARM power down", >> }, >> } >> }; >> >> >> and then: >> >> if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210")) { >> ... >> ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos4210_idle_driver, >> cpu_online_mask); >> ... >> } >> ... > > OK, I will fix it but (if you are OK with it) I will make the code use > "exynos_coupled" naming instead of "exynos4210" one to not have to change > it later. > >> If we can reuse this mechanism, which I believe it is possible to, for >> 4420 and 5250. Then we will be able to refactor this out again.
Ok, sounds good.
> I plan to add support for Exynos3250 next as it should be the simplest > (it is also dual core) and I need it for other reasons anyway. Exynos4412 > (quad core) support requires more work but should also be doable. > > When it comes to Exynos5250 I was thinking about disabling normal AFTR > mode support for it as according to my testing (on Arndale board) it has > never worked (at least in upstream kernels, I don't know about Linaro or > internal ones).
The AFTR state worked on my 5250 very well. It is a Arndale board.
Thanks for resurrecting the patch and providing the multi core idle support. I am too busy to refocus on that right now.
-- Daniel
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |