Re: [PATCH v3]PM/Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> index 2e4cb67..d118e0b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ enum clock_event_nofitiers {
>  	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT,
>  	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND,
>  	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME,
> +	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_FREEZE_PREPARE,
> +	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_FREEZE,
> +	CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_UNFREEZE,

Can we please stop adding more crap to that notifier thing? I rather
see that go away than being expanded.

> @@ -95,6 +98,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
>   */
>  struct clock_event_device {
>  	void			(*event_handler)(struct clock_event_device *);
> +	void			(*real_handler)(struct clock_event_device *);

This is really not the place to put this. We have the hotpath
functions together at the beginning of the struct and not some random
stuff used once in a while. Think about cache lines.

A proper explanation why you need this at all is missing.

>  /*
> + * cpu idle freeze function
> + */

How is that comment helpful?

Not at all. But its simpler to add pointless comments than to document
the important and non obvious stuff, right?

> +static void cpu_idle_freeze(void)
> +{
> +	struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices);
> +	struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * suspend tick, the last CPU suspend timekeeping
> +	 */
> +	clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_FREEZE, NULL);
> +	/*
> +	 * idle loop here if idle_should_freeze()
> +	 */
> +	while (idle_should_freeze()) {
> +		int next_state;
> +		/*
> +		 * interrupt must be disabled before cpu enters idle
> +		 */
> +		local_irq_disable();
> +
> +		next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev);
> +		if (next_state < 0) {
> +			arch_cpu_idle();
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * cpuidle_enter will return with interrupt enabled
> +		 */
> +		cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, next_state);

How is that supposed to work?

If timekeeping is not yet unfrozen, then any interrupt handling code
which calls anything time related is going to hit lala land.

You must guarantee that timekeeping is unfrozen before any interrupt
is handled. If you cannot guarantee that, you cannot freeze
timekeeping ever.

The cpu local tick device is less critical, but it happens to work by
chance, not by design.

>  void irq_enter(void)
>  {
>  	rcu_irq_enter();
> -	if (is_idle_task(current) && !in_interrupt()) {
> +	if (is_idle_task(current) && !in_interrupt() && !in_freeze()) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Prevent raise_softirq from needlessly waking up ksoftirqd
>  		 * here, as softirq will be serviced on return from interrupt.
> @@ -364,7 +365,7 @@ static inline void tick_irq_exit(void)
>  
>  	/* Make sure that timer wheel updates are propagated */
>  	if ((idle_cpu(cpu) && !need_resched()) || tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) {
> -		if (!in_interrupt())
> +		if (!in_interrupt() && !in_freeze())
>  			tick_nohz_irq_exit();

We keep adding conditional over conditionals to the irq_enter/exit
hotpath. Can we please find some more intelligent solution for this?

> @@ -375,15 +386,21 @@ void tick_shutdown(unsigned int *cpup)
>  void tick_suspend(void)
>  {
>  	struct tick_device *td = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_device);
> +	struct clock_event_device *dev = td->evtdev;
>  
> +	dev->real_handler = dev->event_handler;
> +	dev->event_handler = clockevents_handle_noop;

Lacks a proper explanation. What's the point of this exercise?

> +void tick_freeze_prepare(void)
> +{
> +	tick_freeze_target_depth = num_online_cpus();

So we have a 'notifier' callback just to store the number of online
cpus? That's beyond silly. What's wrong with having a frozen counter
and comparing that to num_online_cpus()?

> +void tick_freeze(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * This is serialized against a concurrent wakeup
> +	 * via clockevents_lock
> +	 */
> +	tick_freeze_target_depth--;
> +	tick_suspend();
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * the last tick_suspend CPU suspends timekeeping
> +	 */
> +	if (!tick_freeze_target_depth)
> +		timekeeping_freeze();
> +}
> +
> +void tick_unfreeze(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * the first wakeup CPU resumes timekeeping
> +	 */
> +	if (timekeeping_suspended) {
> +		timekeeping_unfreeze();
> +		touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> +		tick_resume();
> +		hrtimers_resume();
> +	} else {
> +		tick_resume();
> +	}
> +}

This is really horrible. We now have basically the same code for
freeze/unfreeze and suspend/resume just in different files and with
slightly different functionality. And we have that just because you
want to (ab)use clockevents_lock for serialization.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/