[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 0/5] coupled cpuidle state support
On Thursday, May 03, 2012, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> <snip>
> > There are two distinct cases to consider here, (1) when the last I/O
> > device in the domain becomes idle and the question is whether or not to
> > power off the entire domain and (2) when a CPU core in a power domain
> > becomes idle while all of the devices in the domain are idle already.
> >
> > Case (2) is quite straightforward, the .enter() routine for the
> > "domain" C-state has to check whether the domain can be turned off and
> > do it eventually.
> >
> > Case (1) is more difficult and (assuming that all CPU cores in the domain
> > are already idle at this point) i see two possible ways to handle it:
> > (a) Wake up all of the (idle) CPU cores in the domain and let the
> > "domain" C-state's .enter() do the job (ie. turn it into case (2)),
> > similarly to your patchset.
> > (b) If cpuidle has prepared the cores for going into deeper idle,
> > turn the domain off directly without waking up the cores.
> Multiple clusters is a design that has been considered in this
> patchset (all the data structures are in the right place to support
> it), and can be supported in the future, but does not exist in any
> current systems that would be using this. In all of today's SoCs,
> there is a single cluster, so (1) can't happen - no code can be
> executing while all cpus are idle.

OK, but I think it should be taken into consideration nonetheless.

> (b) is an optimization that would not be possible on any future SoC
> that is similar to the current SoCs, where "turn the domain off" is
> very tightly integrated with TrustZone secure code running on the
> primary cpu of the cluster.

I see.

> <snip>
> > Having considered this for a while I think that it may be more straightforward
> > to avoid waking up the already idled cores.
> >
> > For instance, say we have 4 CPU cores in a cluster (package) such that each
> > core has its own idle state (call it C1) and there is a multicore idle state
> > entered by turning off the entire cluster (call this state C-multi). One of
> > the possible ways to handle this seems to be to use an identical table of
> > C-states for each core containing the C1 entry and a kind of fake entry called
> > (for example) C4 with the time characteristics of C-multi and a special
> > .enter() callback. That callback will prepare the core it is called for to
> > enter C-multi, but instead of simply turning off the whole package it will
> > decrement a counter. If the counte happens to be 0 at this point, the
> > package will be turned off. Otherwise, the core will be put into the idle
> > state corresponding to C1, but it will be ready for entering C-multi at
> > any time. The counter will be incremented on exiting the C4 "state".
> I implemented something very similar to this on Tegra2 (having each
> cpu go to C1, but with enough state saved for C-multi), but it turns
> out not to work in hardware. On every existing ARM SMP system where I
> have worked with cpuidle (Tegra2, OMAP4, Exynos5, and some Tegra3),
> only cpu 0 can trigger the transition to C-multi. The cause of this
> restriction is different on every platform - sometimes it's by design,
> sometimes it's a bug in the SoC ROM code, but the restriction exists.
> The primary cpu of the cluster always needs to be awake.

OK, so that means we need to do the wakeup for technical reasons.

> In addition, it may not be possible to transition secondary cpus from
> C1 to C-multi without waking them. That would generally involve
> cutting power to a CPU that is in clock gating, which is not a
> supported power transition in any SoC that I have a datasheet for. I
> made it work for cpu1 on Tegra2, but I can't guarantee that there are
> not unsolvable HW race conditions.
> The only generic way to make this work is to wake up all cpus. Waking
> up a subset of cpus is certainly worth investigating as an
> optimization, but it would not be used on Tegra2, OMAP4, or Exynos5.
> Tegra3 may benefit from it.


> > It looks like this should work without modifying the cpuidle core, but
> > the drawback here is that the cpuidle core doesn't know how much time
> > spend in C4 is really in C1 and how much of it is in C-multi, so the
> > statistics reported by it won't reflect the real energy usage.
> Idle statistics are extremely important when determining why a
> particular use case is drawing too much power, and it is worth
> modifying the cpuidle core if only to keep them accurate. Especially
> when justifying the move from the cpufreq hotplug governor based code
> that every SoC vendor uses in their BSP to a proper multi-CPU cpuidle
> implementation.

I see.

Thanks for the explanation,

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-03 22:41    [W:0.063 / U:23.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site