Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1683770.JmsJDzJTZp@aspire.rjw.lan>
References: <20180620172226.15012-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20180620172226.15012-9-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <1683770.JmsJDzJTZp@aspire.rjw.lan>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 3 Aug 2018 13:42:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrqKm3tyUi=nHoOY-_K+o=ok03TA0cDhzpyNg8_jiaZrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/26] PM / Domains: Extend genpd CPU governor to cope
 with QoS constraints
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 19 July 2018 at 12:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 7:22:08 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> CPU devices and other regular devices may share the same PM domain and may
>> also be hierarchically related via subdomains. In either case, all devices
>> including CPUs, may be attached to a PM domain managed by genpd, that has
>> an idle state with an enter/exit latency.
>>
>> Let's take these latencies into account in the state selection process by
>> genpd's governor for CPUs. This means the governor, pm_domain_cpu_gov,
>> becomes extended to satisfy both a state's residency and a potential dev PM
>> QoS constraint.
>>
>> Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
>> Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>>  include/linux/pm_domain.h            |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c b/drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c
>> index 1aad55719537..03d4e9454ce9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c
>> @@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static bool default_power_down_ok(struct dev_pm_domain *pd)
>>       struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = pd_to_genpd(pd);
>>       struct gpd_link *link;
>>
>> -     if (!genpd->max_off_time_changed)
>> +     if (!genpd->max_off_time_changed) {
>> +             genpd->state_idx = genpd->cached_power_down_state_idx;
>>               return genpd->cached_power_down_ok;
>> +     }
>>
>>       /*
>>        * We have to invalidate the cached results for the masters, so
>> @@ -240,6 +242,7 @@ static bool default_power_down_ok(struct dev_pm_domain *pd)
>>               genpd->state_idx--;
>>       }
>>
>> +     genpd->cached_power_down_state_idx = genpd->state_idx;
>>       return genpd->cached_power_down_ok;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -255,6 +258,10 @@ static bool cpu_power_down_ok(struct dev_pm_domain *pd)
>>       s64 idle_duration_ns;
>>       int cpu, i;
>>
>> +     /* Validate dev PM QoS constraints. */
>> +     if (!default_power_down_ok(pd))
>> +             return false;
>> +
>>       if (!(genpd->flags & GENPD_FLAG_CPU_DOMAIN))
>>               return true;
>>
>> @@ -276,9 +283,9 @@ static bool cpu_power_down_ok(struct dev_pm_domain *pd)
>>       /*
>>        * Find the deepest idle state that has its residency value satisfied
>>        * and by also taking into account the power off latency for the state.
>> -      * Start at the deepest supported state.
>> +      * Start at the state picked by the dev PM QoS constraint validation.
>>        */
>> -     i = genpd->state_count - 1;
>> +     i = genpd->state_idx;
>>       do {
>>               if (!genpd->states[i].residency_ns)
>>                       break;
>> @@ -312,6 +319,6 @@ struct dev_power_governor pm_domain_always_on_gov = {
>>  };
>>
>>  struct dev_power_governor pm_domain_cpu_gov = {
>> -     .suspend_ok = NULL,
>> +     .suspend_ok = default_suspend_ok,
>>       .power_down_ok = cpu_power_down_ok,
>>  };
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> index 97901c833108..dbc69721cad8 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
>>       s64 max_off_time_ns;    /* Maximum allowed "suspended" time. */
>>       bool max_off_time_changed;
>>       bool cached_power_down_ok;
>> +     bool cached_power_down_state_idx;
>>       int (*attach_dev)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain,
>>                         struct device *dev);
>>       void (*detach_dev)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain,
>>
>
> I don't see much value in splitting this patch off [07/26] and it actually
> confused me, so it may as well confuse someone else.
>

The idea was to let people, explicitly, comment on the whether dev PM
Qos constraints should be considered by the governor.

However, I get your point, let's combine them!

Kind regards
Uffe