[PATCH] drivers: perf: arm: implement CPU_PM notifier
khilman at baylibre.com
Thu Feb 25 13:55:23 PST 2016
Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:32:17AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On 25 February 2016 at 02:44, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>> <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:10:20PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com> writes:
>> >> > When a CPU is suspended (either through suspend-to-RAM or CPUidle),
>> >> > its PMU registers content can be lost, which means that counters
>> >> > registers values that were initialized on power down entry have to be
>> >> > reprogrammed on power-up to make sure the counters set-up is preserved
>> >> This assumes that the PMUs are always sharing a power rail with a
>> >> specific CPU, not the cluster. Is that a reliable assumption?
>> > As reliable as assuming the GIC HW state needs save/restore on idle-state
>> > entry, if we have no power domains information linked to CPU PM
>> > notifiers saving/restoring everything every time an idle state deeper
>> > than wfi is entered is the best we can do.
>> > As far as this patch is concerned, if the PMU is on a different power
>> > domain than the CPU, I agree that stopping/resetting/restoring the
>> > PMU registers is a waste of cycles (I will test it also by triggering
>> > the notifiers on wfi, to make sure the reset is not disruptive on
>> > a cpu that is not powered off), I see no alternative other than disabling
>> > idle to carry out profiling sanely (or implement CPU PM notifiers with
>> > runtime PM).
>> I totally understand - I'm faced with the same problem on Coresight.
>> To me the ultimate solution is still to integrate CPU power domain
>> management with runtime PM (like we talked about many times before).
>> I know Lina is working on something that will get us close to that but
>> it's not finished yet.
> I've been waiting for that code for *years* now...
It's still coming... ;)
But, I didn't mean to suggest this patch should wait for a PM domain
based solution, I just wanted to be clear about the assumptions. I have
no objections to this patch as it fixes a long-standing issue.
Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman at baylibre.com>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel