From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69FB29A3ED; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744732049; cv=none; b=Lw7sStBjykIggpUOq+GXjTFmR+WjHbD+/60Qpgw2qH/V037t7PRNOKoljR3SxnYW5RIwJR4pH9dkPhTsekTznnZdiUszxbyL5EML26K68AYcdZblJWvxL2U2YH9cfJHu8BlXgPzOSn/0/0xhcQRycDJXrzaJwyKwGiVZIhFgHWw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744732049; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bbkjmiJcxIoYe1Svw2F1maJ0updDHydTwr2isqonX3U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EG7EABHCiw3tzJkKCrE3g674Mn3y01KwnfYwbEz0zu0ncFV8Vs/QyL1nVrCtzZga+DJu6Hyz0LIu6WiMID2CHjzGyIFSPRNFpOqEXjKR15047DSjW4jiqldcF0Q9o0b8usAZHrYPbWlrj5bvMz0PisddKfxdhdhSVjv1U1rs7sE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=SUOUXvKe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="SUOUXvKe" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B29C725; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:45:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1744731923; bh=bbkjmiJcxIoYe1Svw2F1maJ0updDHydTwr2isqonX3U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SUOUXvKeXcxohklxFHUkWWXRp0PbligOUf+58jeoCTYXSLluDxiPm7W4J1mvx7zGT 7Gic2UrUhA7FZTS7I/HHcCQy+S+f6KVM5mJ1B069/KntDGu2FYaENisZg7C3J33xWd +3dsmvNnfTy/N+W5ih9LAzE/vMibEOVXybehxp4k= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 18:47:24 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: POPESCU Catalin Cc: Jai Luthra , Shawn Guo , "robh@kernel.org" , "krzk+dt@kernel.org" , "conor+dt@kernel.org" , "shawnguo@kernel.org" , "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "festevam@gmail.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "imx@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "m.felsch@pengutronix.de" , GEO-CHHER-bsp-development , "stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: imx8mp: add cpuidle state "cpu-pd-wait" Message-ID: <20250415154724.GG9439@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20241007134424.859467-1-catalin.popescu@leica-geosystems.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi Catalin, On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 03:42:22PM +0000, POPESCU Catalin wrote: > Hi Jai, > > This issue was already reported by Stefan. The problem is that I don't > have a Debix board to investigate. > The main difference b/w WFI and cpu-pd-wait is that the first doesn't > call PSCI/TF-A. So, the issue looks to be related to some settings in > the TF-A. Jai, are you using mainline U-Boot and TF-A, or a downstream version of either (or both) ? > What I don't get is why I don't see this issue neither on our IMX8MP > specific design nor on the EVK, which uses the same PHY as the Debix board. > > On 14/04/2025 14:07, Jai Luthra wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2024 at 17:42:34 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 03:44:24PM +0200, Catalin Popescu wrote: > >>> So far, only WFI is supported on i.MX8mp platform. Add support for > >>> deeper cpuidle state "cpu-pd-wait" that would allow for better power > >>> usage during runtime. This is a port from NXP downstream kernel. > >>> > > Since the introduction of this patch in mainline, I am facing sluggish > > network performance with my Debix Model-A board with i.MX8mp SoC. > > > > The network latency jumps to >1s after almost every other packet: > > > > PING debix (10.0.42.5) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1008 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.488 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1025 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.810 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=590 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.351 ms > > ^C > > --- debix ping statistics --- > > 7 packets transmitted, 6 received, 14.2857% packet loss, time 6126ms > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.351/437.416/1024.755/459.370 ms, pipe 2 > > darkapex at freya in ~ > > > > If I revert the patch, or disable the deeper cpuidle state through > > sysfs, the issue goes away. > > > > # echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/cpuidle/state1/disable > > > > PING debix (10.0.42.5) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.482 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.28 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.26 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.848 ms > > 64 bytes from debix (10.0.42.5): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.406 ms > > ^C > > --- debix ping statistics --- > > 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4051ms > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.406/1.255/2.280/0.842 ms > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Catalin Popescu > >> > >> Applied, thanks! -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart