linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 09/10] cpuidle: declare cpuidle_dev in cpuidle.h

To: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] cpuidle: declare cpuidle_dev in cpuidle.h
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:39:30 +0100
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <20140220140033.GU25765@pburton-linux.le.imgtec.org>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1389794137-11361-1-git-send-email-paul.burton@imgtec.com> <1389794137-11361-10-git-send-email-paul.burton@imgtec.com> <53060496.6000303@linaro.org> <20140220134118.GT25765@pburton-linux.le.imgtec.org> <530608C2.3070507@linaro.org> <20140220140033.GU25765@pburton-linux.le.imgtec.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 02/20/2014 03:00 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 02:53:06PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 02/20/2014 02:41 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 01/15/2014 02:55 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
Declaring this allows drivers which need to initialise each struct
cpuidle_device at initialisation time to make use of the structures
already defined in cpuidle.c, rather than having to wastefully define
their own.

Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
---
  include/linux/cpuidle.h | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
index 50fcbb0..bab4f33 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct cpuidle_device {
  };

  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device *, cpuidle_devices);
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, cpuidle_dev);


Nak. When a device is registered, it is assigned to the cpuidle_devices
pointer and the backend driver should use it.


Yes, but then if the driver needs to initialise the coupled_cpus mask
then it cannot do so until after the device has been registered. During
registration the cpuidle_coupled_register_device will then see the empty
coupled_cpus mask & do nothing. The only other ways around this would be
for the driver to define its own per-cpu struct cpuidle_device (which as
I state in the commit message seems wasteful when cpuidle already
defined them), or for cpuidle_coupled_register_device to be called later
after the driver had a chance to modify devices via the cpuidle_devices
pointers.

Yeah. I understand why you wanted to declare these cpu variables.

The mips cpuidle driver sounds like a bit particular. I believe I need some
clarification on the behavior of the hardware to understand correctly the
driver. Could you explain how the couples act vs the cpu ? And why
cpu_sibling is used instead of cpu_possible_mask ?



Sure. The CPUs that are coupled are actually VPEs (Virtual Processor
Elements) within a single core. They share the compute resource (ALUs
etc) of the core but have their own register state, ie. they're a form
of simultaneous multithreading.

Coherence within a MIPS Coherent Processing System is a property of the
core rather than of an individual VPE (since the VPEs within a core
share the same L1 caches). So for idle states which are non-coherent the
VPEs within the core are coupled. That covers all idle states beyond a
simple "wait" instruction - clock gating or powering down a core
requires it to become non-coherent first.

cpu_sibling_mask is already setup to indicate which CPUs (VPEs) are
within the same core as each other, which is why it is simply copied for
coupled_cpus.

Hi Paul,

thanks for the explanation.

  -- Daniel




--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>