Delays, clocks, timers, hrtimers, etc

* Delays, clocks, timers, hrtimers, etc
@ 2015-01-28 13:16 Mason
  2015-01-29 13:57 ` Mason
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mason @ 2015-01-28 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux ARM, cpufreq, Linux PM, DT

Hello,

I am swimming in a sea of confusion, and am hoping someone would toss
me a life-jacket (of enlightenment). Please forgive me if some of my
questions are poorly asked or appear in seemingly random order.

Working on a Cortex A9 based SoC, I set out to "clean up" the platform
specific timer code, by using as much generic framework as possible.
(Right now, there's a lot of "redundant" code in the mach dir.)

Q1. the {n,u,m}delay function family

arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h mentions
"Delay routines, using a pre-computed "loops_per_second" value."
*BUT* if the frequency changes dynamically (thanks to cpufreq)
the "loops_per_second" value cannot be pre-computed, as it would
change dynamically too, right?

Looking at arch/arm/lib/delay.c it seems the default implementation
is a busy loop (in delay-loop.S) which looks up "loops_per_jiffy"
in the prolog to determine the number of times to loop, right?

http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/lib/delay-loop.S

(Side issue, why is the loop unrolled in __loop_delay? What is the
point of unrolling a busy loop? This is commented code however.)

What happens if loops_per_jiffy changes while one core is in the
busy loop? It seems we might exit the loop too early, which could
break some drivers with some weird heisenbug, no?

Also, is the update of loops_per_jiffy atomic? Is it possible that
if one core reads it while another updates it, we get garbage?

I suppose this is one reason why the default functions are overridden
by register_current_timer_delay(&arch_delay_timer) right? I think the
property of a timer is that its frequency doesn't change, even if the
CPU's frequency changes? So we are still busy looping, but we are
checking the actual time spent in the loop, whatever the cpufreq?

Reference
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt

Q2. Cortex A9 global and private timers

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0407f/CIHGECHJ.html

(What are private timers used for?)

In my platform-specific code, there is a config option to choose between

1) the ARM global timer
2) a platform-specific timer (timer0)

I noticed that there is generic code to support the global timer in
drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c

config ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
	bool
	select CLKSRC_OF if OF
	help
	  This options enables support for the ARM global timer unit

config CLKSRC_ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER_SCHED_CLOCK
	bool
	depends on ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
	default y
	help
	 Use ARM global timer clock source as sched_clock

I was thinking it would be better to use the "standard" option (ARM global timer)
as it is "officially" supported in the vanilla kernel. So less code to write and
to debug, and it has likely received more testing. Why would one rely on
platform-specific timers then?

Are high-resolution timers supported with the global timer?

Q3. Using the generic global timer implementation

So, how do I use that implementation?
(Is someone other than STMicro using it?)

I see:

static void __init global_timer_of_register(struct device_node *np)
CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(arm_gt, "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer", global_timer_of_register);

OF stands for open firmware, yes?
So is this related to device tree?

http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/global_timer.txt

This file makes no sense to me.

- interrupts : One interrupt to each core
interrupts = <1 13 0xf01>;
what are 1 13 0xf01 ??

- clocks : Should be phandle to a clock.
clocks = <&arm_periph_clk>;

For my (old) 3.14 kernel, I found this:

     /*
      * ARM Peripheral clock for timers
      */
     arm_periph_clk: arm_periph_clk {
       #clock-cells = <0>;
       compatible = "fixed-clock";
       clock-frequency = <600000000>;
     };

But it looks like the definitions have moved around since then?

This device tree concept is too much to swallow in a single serving.
Please tell me if I'm going down the correct rabbit hole, and I'll
do some LWN readings to try to wrap my mind around the concept.

Anyway, if anyone can help me out on some of these topics, I'd be
eternally grateful.

Regards.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread