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

[Richard Zhu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aisheng Dong
> Sent: 2019å3æ28æ 19:21
> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>; Leonard Crestez
> <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Richard Zhu
> <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>; Jacky Bai <ping.bai@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx>; Cosmin Samoila
> <cosmin.samoila@xxxxxxx>; Robin Gong <yibin.gong@xxxxxxx>; Mircea Pop
> <mircea.pop@xxxxxxx>; Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxx>;
> catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; Robert Chiras
> <robert.chiras@xxxxxxx>; Anson Huang <anson.huang@xxxxxxx>; Jun Li
> <jun.li@xxxxxxx>; Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx;
> Zening Wang <zening.wang@xxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>;
> BOUGH CHEN <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; Horia Geanta
> <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx>; Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxx>; Joakim Zhang
> <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx>; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Leo Zhang
> <leo.zhang@xxxxxxx>; Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx>;
> linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ranjani
> Vaidyanathan <ranjani.vaidyanathan@xxxxxxx>; Han Xu <han.xu@xxxxxxx>;
> will.deacon@xxxxxxx; Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@xxxxxxx>;
> sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; Peng Fan
> <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Viorel Suman
> <viorel.suman@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [RFC 0/7] cpuidle: Add poking mechanism to support non-IPI
> wakeup
> 
> > From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 2:13 AM On 27/03/2019 17:00, Leonard
> > Crestez wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > If you have an ITS, certainly. If you don't, it depends. MSIs can hit
> > the distributor's MBI registers and generate non-wired SPIs, which I
> > assume will bypass the GPC altogether.
> >
> 
> Richard & Jacky,
> 
> Can you double check if this issue affect PCI MSI function?
> 
[Richard Zhu] GIC V3 has the ITS/LPIs features. That can be used by PCIe MSI functions.
BTW, the PCIe MSI ITS mode is not enabled in vendor tree.

Best Regards
Richard Zhu

> Regards
> Dong Aisheng
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> > Establishing a link between cpuidle and PCI in the kernel would be
> > pretty invasive, and that would come on top of what this series also
> mandates.
> >
> > At that level of apparent brokenness, it is far safer to get cpuidle
> > out of the picture altogether, and I'd rather see these patches in a vendor
> tree (for once).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 	M.
> > --
> > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...