Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1266543 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-10 15:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-17 13:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for Tegra210 AGIC Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 15:40 +0100
[RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-10 16:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 17:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-10 17:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-10 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-11 11:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 12:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 15:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 15:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 16:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-13 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> - 2015-11-12 18:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> - 2015-11-13 00:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-13 10:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-13 21:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-16 11:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2015-11-16 11:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-17 13:00 +0100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 10:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <quiwN-4sk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1268355 |
On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> writes: > >> Some IRQ chips may be located in a power domain outside of the CPU subsystem >> and hence will require device specific runtime power management. Ideally, >> rather than adding more functions to the irq_chip_ops function table, using >> existing chip functions such as irq_startup/shutdown or >> irq_request/release_resources() would be best. However, these existing chip >> functions are called in the context of a spinlock which is not ideal for >> power management operations that may take some time to power up a domain. >> >> Two possible solutions are: >> 1. Move existing chip operators such as irq_request/release_resources() >> outside of the spinlock and use these helpers. >> 2. Add new chip operators that are called outside of any spinlocks while >> setting up and freeing an IRQ. > >> Not knowing whether we can safely move irq_request/release_resources() to >> outside the spinlock (but hopefully this will solicit some feedback), add >> new chip operators for runtime resuming and suspending of an IRQ chip. > > I'm not quite seeing how this would connect to the actual hardware > power domain (presumabaly managed by genpd) and any other devices in > that domain (presumably managed by runtime PM.) So this patch is just providing some hooks that an irqchip can use to perform any PM related operations. If you look at the 2nd patch in the series you will see for the GIC that these helpers are used to call pm_runtime_get/put() which would handle the power-domain. > If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off > independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't > using RPM. That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers invoke RPM then that will not be the case. > Is there a longer-term plan to handle the irqchips as a "normal" device > and use RPM? IMO, that approach would be helpful even for irqchips that > share power domains with CPUs, since there are efforts working towards > using genpd/RPM to manage CPUs/clusters. That would ideal. However, the majority of irqchips today create/register them with IRQCHIP_DECLARE() and not as "normal" devices. Therefore, I was reluctant to add "struct device" to the irqchip structure. However, if this is what you would prefer and Thomas is ok with it, then that would be fine with me. Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 21:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qusPv-2xY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1268703 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off > > independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't > > using RPM. > > That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers > invoke RPM then that will not be the case. You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the irqchip as is might serve other devices as well. OTOH, if it can be powered down then all idle devices need to release the irq they requested because request_irq() would hold a ref on the power domain. I have no idea how you can describe that proper. > > Is there a longer-term plan to handle the irqchips as a "normal" device > > and use RPM? IMO, that approach would be helpful even for irqchips that > > share power domains with CPUs, since there are efforts working towards > > using genpd/RPM to manage CPUs/clusters. > > That would ideal. However, the majority of irqchips today > create/register them with IRQCHIP_DECLARE() and not as "normal" devices. > Therefore, I was reluctant to add "struct device" to the irqchip > structure. However, if this is what you would prefer and Thomas is ok > with it, then that would be fine with me. I have no objections against that, but how is the 'struct device' going to be initialized? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qvoAa-5D7-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269190 |
On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off >>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't >>> using RPM. >> >> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers >> invoke RPM then that will not be the case. > > You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If > all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the > irqchip as is might serve other devices as well. Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for all requested IRQs. > OTOH, if it can be powered down then all idle devices need to release > the irq they requested because request_irq() would hold a ref on the > power domain. Yes. > I have no idea how you can describe that proper. Do you mean properly describe the interaction between runtime-pm and the irqchip? >>> Is there a longer-term plan to handle the irqchips as a "normal" device >>> and use RPM? IMO, that approach would be helpful even for irqchips that >>> share power domains with CPUs, since there are efforts working towards >>> using genpd/RPM to manage CPUs/clusters. >> >> That would ideal. However, the majority of irqchips today >> create/register them with IRQCHIP_DECLARE() and not as "normal" devices. >> Therefore, I was reluctant to add "struct device" to the irqchip >> structure. However, if this is what you would prefer and Thomas is ok >> with it, then that would be fine with me. > > I have no objections against that, but how is the 'struct device' > going to be initialized? It would be initialised by the irqchip driver. However, it would be optional. The genirq core could simply check to see if the chip->dev member is initialised and if so enable runtime-pm. Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qvoAb-5D7-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269945 |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off
>>>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't
>>>> using RPM.
>>>
>>> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers
>>> invoke RPM then that will not be the case.
>>
>> You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If
>> all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the
>> irqchip as is might serve other devices as well.
>
> Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no
> interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for
> all requested IRQs.
That means the irqchip won't be powered down automatically when the
last user is powered down, unless all users release their irqs during
suspend.
Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference
count.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 11:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qvpmx-69b-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269948 |
On 16/11/15 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote: >> On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off >>>>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't >>>>> using RPM. >>>> >>>> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers >>>> invoke RPM then that will not be the case. >>> >>> You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If >>> all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the >>> irqchip as is might serve other devices as well. >> >> Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no >> interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for >> all requested IRQs. > > That means the irqchip won't be powered down automatically when the > last user is powered down, unless all users release their irqs during > suspend. Right. > Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference > count. So what would you suggest? Adding a pm_runtime_register_irq() API that would register an IRQ with the device that you want RPM to handle? Not sure if there is a better/easier way to handle this. Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 11:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qvpwd-6co-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269978 |
Hi Jon,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 16/11/15 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>> On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>>>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off
>>>>>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't
>>>>>> using RPM.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers
>>>>> invoke RPM then that will not be the case.
>>>>
>>>> You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If
>>>> all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the
>>>> irqchip as is might serve other devices as well.
>>>
>>> Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no
>>> interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for
>>> all requested IRQs.
>>
>> That means the irqchip won't be powered down automatically when the
>> last user is powered down, unless all users release their irqs during
>> suspend.
>
> Right.
>
>> Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference
>> count.
>
> So what would you suggest? Adding a pm_runtime_register_irq() API that
> would register an IRQ with the device that you want RPM to handle? Not
> sure if there is a better/easier way to handle this.
The irqchip needs to keep track how many times request_irq() has been
called, cfr. your suggestion above.
On the other side, the system needs to keep track how many times request_irq()
has been called for each irqchip, so it can subtract those numbers from the
irqchip's counters during suspend of the device, and re-add them during resume.
So we need at least a "struct device *" parameter for request_irq().
devm_request_irq() already has that, but not all drivers use that.
However, I think this should be looked at into the context of "[RFD]
Functional dependencies between devices".
https://lwn.net/Articles/662205/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/27/388
There can be other dependencies than interrupts between devices.
All functions using dependencies need a "struct device *" parameter to
record information.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Message-ID | <qvN5w-4yq-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269985 |
Hi Geert, On 16/11/15 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote: [snip] >>> Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference >>> count. >> >> So what would you suggest? Adding a pm_runtime_register_irq() API that >> would register an IRQ with the device that you want RPM to handle? Not >> sure if there is a better/easier way to handle this. > > The irqchip needs to keep track how many times request_irq() has been > called, cfr. your suggestion above. > > On the other side, the system needs to keep track how many times request_irq() > has been called for each irqchip, so it can subtract those numbers from the > irqchip's counters during suspend of the device, and re-add them during resume. > So we need at least a "struct device *" parameter for request_irq(). > devm_request_irq() already has that, but not all drivers use that. Yes that would make sense. However, I am wondering if the syscore suspend/resume operators could be used here to do something like ... pm_runtime_disable(dev); if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) chip->irq_runtime_suspend(data); > However, I think this should be looked at into the context of "[RFD] > Functional dependencies between devices". > https://lwn.net/Articles/662205/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/27/388 > > There can be other dependencies than interrupts between devices. > All functions using dependencies need a "struct device *" parameter to > record information. Yes I like the sound of that. That would be ideal. However, I am guessing that that is a way off at the moment ... Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web