Hi Preeti, On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:04:36PM +0100, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On 05/29/2014 02:53 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On platforms implementing CPU power management, the CPUidle subsystem > > can allow CPUs to enter idle states where local timers logic is lost on > > power > > down. To keep the software timers functional the kernel relies on an > > always-on broadcast timer to be present in the platform to relay the > > interrupt signalling the timer expiries. > > > > For platforms implementing CPU core gating that do not implement an > > always-on > > HW timer or implement it in a broken way, this patch adds code to initialize > > the kernel software broadcast hrtimer upon boot. It relies on a dynamically > > It would be best to use the term "hrtimer based broadcast device" > throughout the changelog for uniformity and to avoid confusion instead > of mixing it with "software broadcast".
Agreed. > > chosen CPU to be always powered-up. This CPU then relays the timer interrupt > > to CPUs in deep-idle states through its HW local timer device. > > > > On systems with power management capabilities but no functional HW broadcast > > tick device, the hrtimer based clock event device allows the kernel to > > enter high-resolution timer mode, which improves system latencies and saves > > dynamic power. > > Sorry but I do not understand the above paragraph. What do you mean by > "allows the kernel to enter high resolution timer mode" ? And how does > it improve system latency? I understand that the hrtimer based > clockevent device saves dynamic power since it provides a mechanism in > which cpus can enter deeper idle states. See Mark's reply, I have nothing to add. I will remove this paragraph anyway. > > The side effect of having a CPU always-on has implications on power > > management > > platform capabilities and makes CPUidle suboptimal, since at least a CPU is > > kept always in a shallow idle state by the kernel to relay timer interrupts, > > but at least leaves the kernel with a functional system with some working > > power > > management capabilities. > > > > The hrtimer based clock event device has lowest possible rating so that, > > if a platform contains a functional HW clock event device with broadcast > > capabilities, that device is always chosen as a tick broadcast device > > instead > > of the software based one, now present by default. > > I think this statement "instead of the software based one, now present > by default" is incorrect. The hrtimer based clock event device will come > into picture only when the arch calls tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast() > explicitly. Otherwise either the arch should register a real clock > device which does broadcast or should disable deep idle states where the > local timers stop. So I would suggest skipping the last paragraph as it > is not conveying anything in specific. The fact that a clock device with > the highest rating will be chosen is already known and need not be > mentioned explicitly IMHO. > > > > > Cc: Preeti U Murthy <pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/time.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c > > index 29c39d5..3d43900 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > > * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > > */ > > > > +#include <linux/clockchips.h> > > #include <linux/export.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/interrupt.h> > > @@ -67,6 +68,8 @@ void __init time_init(void) > > > > clocksource_of_init(); > > > > + tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast(); > > + > > arch_timer_rate = arch_timer_get_rate(); > > if (!arch_timer_rate) > > panic("Unable to initialise architected timer.\n"); > > > > You have defined flag "CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP" for your deep idle > states in which timer stops right? Yes, I would have noticed otherwise =) Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/