From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add support for S3 non-stop TSC support.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:46:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FD8D07.5030908@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358750325-21217-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
On 01/20/2013 10:38 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On some new Intel Atom processors (Penwell and Cloverview), there is
> a feature that the TSC won't stop S3, say the TSC value won't be
> reset to 0 after resume. This feature makes TSC a more reliable
> clocksource and could benefit the timekeeping code during system
> suspend/resume cycles.
>
> The enabling efforts include adding new flags for this feature,
> modifying clocksource.c and timekeeping.c to support and utilizing
> it.
>
> One remaining question is inside the timekeeping_resume(), we don't
> know if it is called by resuming from suspend(s2ram) or from
> hibernate(s2disk), as there is no easy way to check it currently.
> But it doesn't hurt as these Penwell/Cloverview platforms only have
> S3 state, and no S4.
>
Ooof. This is an interesting feature, but it does complicate things a bit.
So just a few high-level thoughts initially.
The clocksource code has to balance being able to make fine tuned
adjustments with also being able to properly account for time when no
timer interrupts occur. So by stretching the maximum time interval out,
you end up hurting the adjustment granularity.
Also, since you still have a limited time value (40 minutes instead of
10), you will still run into lost time issues if the system suspends for
longer then that. I think its reasonable to expect we get timer
interrupts at least every 10 minutes while the system is running, but
that's maybe not a reasonable expectation in suspend (even if we push it
out to 40 minutes).
Because of this, I think trying to integrate this feature into the
clocksource code is the wrong approach.
What this feature really reminds me of, is our discussion with Jason,
and how the 32k counter is used on some ARM platforms with
read_persistent_clock(). While read_persistent_clock() was initially a
sort of special RTC interface, which let us initialize time properly in
early boot and manage tracking suspend/resume time (before interrupts
are enabled). The ARM platforms with the 32k counter really only use it
for suspend/resume tracking (since it doesn't give a valid time at
boot), and instead initialize time some other way. I always considered
it an interesting and creative slight misuse of the interface, but now
that there's a good example of other systems where this approach would
be usable, I think we should probably formalize it some.
What I'd propose is that we break the read_persistent_clock()
functionality up. So we need two interfaces:
1) An interface to access a time value we used to initialize the
system's CLOCK_REALTIME time.
2) An interface to measure the length of suspend.
Interface #1 could be possibly just replaced with the RTCTOSYS
functionality. Although the downside there is that for some time at
bootup between the timekeeping_init() function running (prior to
interrupts being enabled) and the RTC driver being available (after
interrupts are enabled), where we'd have an incorrect system clock. So
we may want to preserve something like the existing
read_persistent_clock() interface, but as Jason suggested, we could push
that access into the RTC driver itself.
Interface #2 could then be either RTC based, or countinuous counter
based. Since we still want to do this measurement with interrupts off,
we still would need that interrupt-free RTC method like
read_persistent_clock() where supported (falling back to the RTC
driver's suspend/resume handler to try to fix things up as best it can
if that's not available).
There is still plenty of ugly details as to how interface #2 would work.
Since it could return something as coarse as seconds, or it could
provide nanosecond granularity, you probably want to return a timespec
that we'd capture at suspend and resume, and calculate the delta of.
However, in order to properly provide a timespec from a raw TSC counter,
you need to be careful with the math to avoid overflows as TSC counter
value grows (take a look at the sched_clock code). Also whatever
function backs this would need to have the logic to know when to use the
TSC counter vs falling back to the RTC in the case where we're actually
able to go into S4.
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-21 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-21 6:38 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add support for S3 non-stop TSC support Feng Tang
2013-01-21 6:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: Add cpu capability flag X86_FEATURE_TSC_S3_NOTSTOP Feng Tang
2013-01-21 7:27 ` Chen Gong
2013-01-21 7:59 ` Feng Tang
2013-01-21 15:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-22 14:07 ` Feng Tang
2013-01-21 6:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] clocksource: Add new feature flag CLOCK_SOURCE_SUSPEND_NOTSTOP Feng Tang
2013-01-21 6:38 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] x86: tsc: Add support for new S3_NOTSTOP feature Feng Tang
2013-01-21 6:38 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] clocksource: Enlarge the maxim time interval when configuring the scale and shift Feng Tang
2013-01-21 7:25 ` Chen Gong
2013-01-21 6:38 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] timekeeping: Add support for clocksource which doesn't stop during suspend Feng Tang
2013-01-21 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add support for S3 non-stop TSC support Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-30 18:14 ` Pavel Machek
2013-04-01 17:32 ` John Stultz
2013-04-01 20:31 ` Pavel Machek
2013-04-01 20:41 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 18:46 ` John Stultz [this message]
2013-01-22 14:55 ` Feng Tang
2013-01-22 21:56 ` John Stultz
2013-01-24 3:37 ` Feng Tang
2013-01-24 18:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-01-22 19:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-01-22 20:22 ` John Stultz
2013-01-23 0:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-01-23 0:41 ` John Stultz
2013-01-23 1:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-01-23 1:54 ` John Stultz
2013-01-23 2:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-01-23 3:07 ` John Stultz
2013-01-23 19:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50FD8D07.5030908@linaro.org \
--to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox