Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/03] irqchip: renesas-irqc: Fine grained Runtime PM support

[Magnus Damm]

Hi Geert,

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> irqchip: renesas-irqc: Fine grained Runtime PM support
>>
>> [PATCH/RFC 01/03] irqchip: renesas-irqc: Add irq_enable() and irq_disable()
>> [PATCH/RFC 02/03] irqchip: renesas-irqc: Add fine grained Runtime PM code
>> [PATCH/RFC 03/03] irqchip: renesas-irqc: Rely on Runtime PM for wakeup
>
> Thanks for your patches!

Thanks!

>> These patches attempt to convert the IRQC driver from using a mix of clock
>> framework and Runtime PM into only using Runtime PM and doing that in a
>> more fine grained way than before. With these patches in place, if there
>> is no interrupt used then the clock and/or power domain will not be used.
>>
>> Basic operation is that With these patches applied ->irq_enable() will
>> perform Runtime PM 'get sync' and ->irq_disable() simply performs
>> Runtime PM 'put'. The trigger mode callback is assumed to happen at any
>> time so there is a get/put wrapper there.
>>
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding the IRQ core code this means that the IRQC
>> struct device will be in Runtime PM 'get sync' state after someone has
>> started using an interrupt.
>
> I'm afraid you can't call pm_runtime_get_sync() from these methods, as
> they may be called from interrupt context.

Ouch. I know the clock framework has prepare/enable separated with
context, but with the irqchip callbacks I suppose no such separation
is made...? Maybe it makes more sense to do power management from the
online/offline hooks?

> BTW, I ran into similar issues with rcar-gpio, when trying to improve its
> Runtime PM handling (still have to finish my WIP).

Yeah, the IRQC and GPIO interrupt bits should be pretty much the same.
I considered IRQC to be a simpler test case, but I guess it is may be
more complicated due to lack of wakeup sources.

> On r8a73a4/ape6evm, I now get during boot:
>
> -----8<-----
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 4.0.0-ape6evm-10563-g8b333096057b3c10 #213 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> swapper/0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>  (&irq_desc_lock_class){?.+...}, at: [<c0088a34>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x18/0x190
> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>   [<c041cf80>] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x2c
>   [<c028a748>] __rpm_callback+0x50/0x60
>   [<c028a778>] rpm_callback+0x20/0x80
>   [<c028af24>] rpm_resume+0x3a4/0x5ec
>   [<c028bc10>] __pm_runtime_resume+0x4c/0x64
>   [<c024241c>] irqc_irq_set_type+0x34/0x9c
>   [<c0086dc8>] __irq_set_trigger+0x54/0x11c
>   [<c00883fc>] irq_set_irq_type+0x34/0x5c
>   [<c008ad6c>] irq_create_of_mapping+0x114/0x168
>   [<c02d6f5c>] irq_of_parse_and_map+0x24/0x2c
>   [<c02d6f7c>] of_irq_to_resource+0x18/0xb8
>   [<c02d7120>] of_irq_to_resource_table+0x3c/0x54
>   [<c02d4c74>] of_device_alloc+0x104/0x170
>   [<c02d4d28>] of_platform_device_create_pdata+0x48/0xac
>   [<c02d4e20>] of_platform_bus_create+0x94/0x130
>   [<c02d520c>] of_platform_populate+0x180/0x1c4
>   [<c0242778>] simple_pm_bus_probe+0x30/0x38
>   [<c028431c>] platform_drv_probe+0x44/0xa4
>   [<c0282d10>] driver_probe_device+0x178/0x2bc
>   [<c0282f2c>] __driver_attach+0x94/0x98
>   [<c028143c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x6c/0xa0
>   [<c0281dcc>] bus_add_driver+0x140/0x1e8
>   [<c02837dc>] driver_register+0x78/0xf8
>   [<c0540d40>] do_one_initcall+0x118/0x1c8
>   [<c0540f34>] kernel_init_freeable+0x144/0x1e4
>   [<c04148cc>] kernel_init+0x8/0xe8
>   [<c0010210>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
> irq event stamp: 2304
> hardirqs last  enabled at (2301): [<c0010c38>] arch_cpu_idle+0x20/0x3c
> hardirqs last disabled at (2302): [<c0014734>] __irq_svc+0x34/0x5c
> softirqs last  enabled at (2304): [<c002fa54>] irq_enter+0x68/0x84
> softirqs last disabled at (2303): [<c002fa40>] irq_enter+0x54/0x84
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>   <Interrupt>
>     lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> no locks held by swapper/0/0.
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
> 4.0.0-ape6evm-10563-g8b333096057b3c10 #213
> Hardware name: Generic R8A73A4 (Flattened Device Tree)
> [<c0017280>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0013b90>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [<c0013b90>] (show_stack) from [<c0417450>] (dump_stack+0x88/0x98)
> [<c0417450>] (dump_stack) from [<c007007c>] (print_usage_bug+0x22c/0x2d8)
> [<c007007c>] (print_usage_bug) from [<c007032c>] (mark_lock+0x204/0x768)
> [<c007032c>] (mark_lock) from [<c0072b58>] (__lock_acquire+0xa1c/0x215c)
> [<c0072b58>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c0074bf0>] (lock_acquire+0xac/0x12c)
> [<c0074bf0>] (lock_acquire) from [<c041cdf0>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40)
> [<c041cdf0>] (_raw_spin_lock) from [<c0088a34>] (handle_fasteoi_irq+0x18/0x190)
> [<c0088a34>] (handle_fasteoi_irq) from [<c0085394>]
> (generic_handle_irq+0x2c/0x3c)
> [<c0085394>] (generic_handle_irq) from [<c0085400>]
> (__handle_domain_irq+0x5c/0xb4)
> [<c0085400>] (__handle_domain_irq) from [<c000a3e4>] (gic_handle_irq+0x24/0x5c)
> [<c000a3e4>] (gic_handle_irq) from [<c0014744>] (__irq_svc+0x44/0x5c)
> Exception stack(0xc0583f58 to 0xc0583fa0)
> 3f40:                                                       00000001 00000001
> 3f60: 00000000 c05887a8 c0582000 c05854fc c0585400 c05d6624 c0585498 c057d3c4
> 3f80: c041f220 00000000 01000000 c0583fa0 c0070a74 c0010c3c 20000113 ffffffff
> [<c0014744>] (__irq_svc) from [<c0010c3c>] (arch_cpu_idle+0x24/0x3c)
> [<c0010c3c>] (arch_cpu_idle) from [<c0068fb8>] (cpu_startup_entry+0x170/0x280)
> [<c0068fb8>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<c0540c1c>] (start_kernel+0x358/0x364)
> [<c0540c1c>] (start_kernel) from [<4000807c>] (0x4000807c)
> ----->8-----

Thanks, this looks troublesome. =) I can see it is on APE6EVM, but
which patches are applied?

Is it possible to reproduce on R-Car Gen2 somehow?

>> As for wakeup support, based on IRQ_WAKEUP_STATE being toggled in
>> irq_set_irq_wake() together with the irqd_is_wakeup_set() usage in
>> suspend_device_irqs() it looks like interrupts used for wakeup will
>> stay enabled once we use Runtime PM in ->irq_enable() and ->irq_disable()
>> and because of that the clock operations and custom ->irq_set_wake()
>> should not be necessary.
>>
>> I have boot tested this with some simple PHY link state change IRQs
>> on a Koelsch board, but I have not tried Suspend-to-RAM yet with wakeup
>> support. It would be useful to test this with Suspend-to-RAM on APE6EVM.
>
> Unfortunately pm_runtime_get_sync() doesn't protect against s2ram.
> pm_clk_suspend() will be called anyway, disabling the clock if it wasn't
> enabled explicitly. That's why I incremented the clock's enable count manually
> when wake-up is enabled.

Can you please clarify what you mean about "enabled explicitly"? Just
enabling the clock may solve the issue for this particular driver, but
as a general approach it seems to me that we probably need to control
both power domain and clock. So PM domain handling must be necessary
somehow I think.

Also, I honestly don't know what kind of special casing we need to do
with the interrupt controller during Suspend-to-RAM. Ideally it would
be nice if we could turn off all clocks / power domains that are not
necessary for wakeup, but this seems quite similar to regular runtime
operation IMO.

So the question is how to get runtime operation to work well...

> During the suspend phase, it does:
>
> -----8<-----
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee120000.sd: pm_clk_resume()
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee120000.sd: pm_clk_suspend()
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee120000.sd: pm_clk_resume()
> PM: Syncing filesystems ...
> done.
> PM: Preparing system for mem sleep
> Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds) done.
> Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds) done.
> PM: Entering mem sleep
> i2c-sh_mobile e60b0000.i2c: pm_clk_resume()
> MSTP iic5 ON
> sh-dma-engine e6700020.dma-controller: pm_clk_resume()
> MSTP dmac ON
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee120000.sd: pm_clk_suspend()
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: pm_clk_suspend()
> PM: suspend of devices complete after 24.016 msecs
> PM: late suspend of devices complete after 7.605 msecs
> sh-dma-engine e6700020.dma-controller: pm_clk_suspend()
> MSTP dmac OFF
> simple-pm-bus fec10000.bus: pm_clk_suspend()
> sh_mmcif ee200000.mmc: pm_clk_suspend()
> MSTP mmcif0 OFF
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee120000.sd: pm_clk_suspend()
> sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: pm_clk_suspend()
> sh-sci e6c40000.serial: pm_clk_suspend()
> rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: pm_clk_suspend()
> MSTP thermal OFF
> sh-pfc e6050000.pfc: pm_clk_suspend()
> renesas_irqc e61c0200.interrupt-controller: pm_clk_suspend()
> renesas_irqc e61c0000.interrupt-controller: pm_clk_suspend()
> MSTP irqc OFF
> ----->8-----
>
> Woops, wake-up by IRQC won't work anymore as the IRQC clock is now disabled.

So if there is any wakeup source needed shouldn't the Runtime PM
device remain in "get" state?

Thanks,

/ magnus
--
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/