[PATCH RFC 2/3] PM / Domains: Support atomic PM domains

Kevin Hilman khilman at kernel.org
Wed Jun 10 11:04:46 PDT 2015

Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org> writes:

> Power Domains currently support turning on/off only in process context.

Generic Power Domains...

Also Re: $SUBJECT.  s/atomic/IRQ safe/

> This restricts the usage of PM domains to devices and domains that
> could be powered on/off in irq disabled contexts as the mutexes used in
> GenPD allows for cpu sleep while waiting for locks.

That sentence reads the opposite of what you mean.  Rather than "This
restricts X to Y", I think you menant "This prevents X for Y".

> Genpd inherently provides support for devices, domain hierarchy and can

s/domain heirarchy/nesting/

> be used to represent cpu clusters like in ARM's big.Little, where, each
> cpu cluster is in its domain, with supporting caches and other
> peripheral hardware. 

s/domain/power domain/

> Multiple such domains could be part of another domain. 

OK, but not important to this change IMO.

> Because mutexes are used to protect and synchronize domain


> operations and cpu idle operations are inherently atomic, 

Be more specific about "CPU idle operations are inherently atomic", as
it's not obvious that it's true.  I think what you mean is that
the CPUidle paths for entering of low-power idle states is inherently
atomic because interrupts are disabled.

> the use of
> genpd is not possible for runtime suspend and resume of the pm domain.

... so, the use of genpd during the idle path of CPUs is not currently
possible because interrups are disabled in the idle path.

> Replacing the locks to spinlocks would allow cpu domain to be be powered

> off to save power, when all the cpus are powered off.

More accuratly, replacing the locks doesn't allow the domain to be
powered off, rather it allows genpd to be used in the idle path, which 
would allow genpd to be used

> However, not all domains can operate in irq-safe contexts and usually
> would need to sleep during domain operations. So genpd has to support
> both the cases, where the domain is or is not irq-safe. The irq-safe
> attribute is therefore domain specific.
> To achieve domain specific locking, set the GENPD_FLAG_IRQ_SAFE flag
> while defining the domain. This determines if the domain should use a
> spinlock instead of a mutex. Locking is abstracted through
> genpd_lock_domain() and genpd_unlock_domain() functions that use the
> flag to determine the locking to be used for this domain.
> The restriction this imposes on the domain hierarchy is that subdomains
> and all devices in the hierarchy also be irq-safe. Non irq-safe domains
> may continue to have irq-safe devices, but not the other way around.

This might need some corresponding updates to Documentation/ as well.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list