Re: [RFC 0/7] cpuidle: Add poking mechanism to support non-IPI wakeup

[Leonard Crestez]

On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 17:06 +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 15:57 +0000 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
> > On 27/03/2019 15:44, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 13:21 +0000 schrieb Abel Vesa:
> > > > This work is a workaround I'm looking into (more as a background task)
> > > > in order to add support for cpuidle on i.MX8MQ based platforms.
> > > > 
> > > > The main idea here is getting around the missing GIC wake_request signal
> > > > (due to integration design issue) by waking up a each individual core through
> > > > some dedicated SW power-up bits inside the power controller (GPC) right before
> > > > every IPI is requested for that each individual core.
> > > 
> > > Just a general comment, without going into the details of this series:
> > > this issue is not only affecting IPIs, but also MSIs terminated at the
> > > GIC. Currently MSIs are terminated at the PCIe core, but terminating
> > > them at the GIC is clearly preferable, as this allows assigning CPU
> > > affinity to individual MSIs and lowers IRQ service overhead.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what the consequences are for upstream Linux support yet,
> > > but we should keep in mind that having a workaround for IPIs is only
> > > solving part of the issue.
> > 
> > If this erratum is affecting more than just IPIs, then indeed I don't
> > see how this patch series solves anything.
> > 
> > But the erratum documentation seems to imply that only SGIs are
> > affected, and goes as far as suggesting to use an external interrupt
> > would solve it. How comes this is not the case? Or is it that anything
> > directly routed to a redistributor is also affected? This would break
> > LPIs (and thus MSIs) and PPIs (the CPU timer, among others).
> > 
> > What is the *exact* status of this thing? I have the ugly feeling that
> > the true workaround is just to disable cpuidle.
> 
> As far as I understand the erratum, the basic issue is that the GIC
> wake_request signals are not connected to the GPC (the CPU/peripheral
> power sequencer). The SPIs are routed through the GPC and thus are
> visible as wakeup sources, which is why the workaround of using an
> external SPI as wakeup trigger for the IPI works.

We had a kernel workaround for IPIs in our internal tree for a long
time and I don't think we do anything special for PCI. Does PCI MSI
really bypass the GPC on 8mq?

Adding Richard/Jacky, they might know about this.

This seems like something of a corner case to me, don't many imx boards
ship without PCI; especially for low-power scenarios? If required it
might be reasonable to add an additional workaround to disable all
cpuidle if pci msis are used.

--
Regards,
Leonard