From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
SH-Linux <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Simon Horman [Horms]" <horms@verge.net.au>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Shinya Kuribayashi <shinya.kuribayashi.px@renesas.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] clockevents: Ignore C3STOP when CPUIdle is disabled
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:24:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C0193A.40607@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANqRtoR-f6SXE0HFw_giJj3PMas-WZA_WvmkTL2rA-jVj_2QCA@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/18/2013 09:39 AM, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 06/18/2013 09:17 AM, Magnus Damm wrote:
>>> From: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
>>>
>>> Introduce the function tick_device_may_c3stop() that
>>> ignores the C3STOP flag in case CPUIdle is disabled.
>>>
>>> The C3STOP flag tells the system that a clock event
>>> device may be stopped during deep sleep, but if this
>>> will happen or not depends on things like if CPUIdle
>>> is enabled and if a CPUIdle driver is available.
>>>
>>> This patch assumes that if CPUIdle is disabled then
>>> the sleep mode triggering C3STOP will never be entered.
>>> So by ignoring C3STOP when CPUIdle is disabled then it
>>> becomes possible to use high resolution timers with only
>>> per-cpu local timers - regardless if they have the
>>> C3STOP flag set or not.
>>>
>>> Observed on the r8a73a4 SoC that at this point only uses
>>> ARM architected timers for clock event and clock sources.
>>>
>>> Without this patch high resolution timers are run time
>>> disabled on the r8a73a4 SoC - this regardless of CPUIdle
>>> is disabled or not.
>>>
>>> The less short term fix is to add support for more timers
>>> on the r8a73a4 SoC, but until CPUIdle support is enabled
>>> it must be possible to use high resoultion timers without
>>> additional timers.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear some feedback and also test this on more
>>> systems before merging the code, see the non-SOB below.
>>
>> Do we need a broadcast timer when cpuidle is not compiled in the kernel ?
>
> Yes, if there is no per-cpu timer available. It depends on what the
> SMP support code for a particular SoC or architecture happen to
> enable.
Ok thanks for the information.
There is here a multiple occurrence of the information "the timer will
stop when power is saved": CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP and
CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP, so I am wondering if some code simplification
couldn't be done before your patch.
The function:
tick_broadcast_oneshot_control is called from clockevents_notify. This
one is called from the cpuidle framework or the back-end cpuidle driver.
The caller knows the timer will be stop and this is why it is switching
to the broadcast mode. But we have a sanity check in
tick_broadcast_oneshot_control function:
if (!(dev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
return;
In other words, CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP will tell the framework to call
clockevents_notify and the tick broadcast code will re-check the device
will effectively go down. IMHO, we can get rid of this check.
The same happens for the tick_do_broadcast_on_off function.
That reduces the number of C3STOP usage.
--
<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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-18 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-18 7:17 [PATCH/RFC] clockevents: Ignore C3STOP when CPUIdle is disabled Magnus Damm
2013-06-18 7:32 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-18 7:39 ` Magnus Damm
2013-06-18 8:24 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2013-06-18 8:49 ` Magnus Damm
2013-06-19 13:55 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-18 8:30 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-18 8:56 ` Magnus Damm
2013-06-19 13:53 ` Daniel Lezcano
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=51C0193A.40607@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=shinya.kuribayashi.px@renesas.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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