|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] cpufreq implementation for OMAP under xen hypervisor.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Oleksandr Dmytryshyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:35:47PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Ian Campbell
>> >> > <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 22:41 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> >> > > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 22:56 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> >> > > > > > I am trying to think of an alternative, such as passing the
>> >> > > > > > real cpu
>> >> > > > > > nodes to dom0 but then adding status = "disabled", but I am not
>> >> > > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > whether Linux checks the status for cpu nodes.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > status = "disabled" is defined to have a specific (i.e.
>> >> > > > > non-default)
>> >> > > > > meaning for cpu nodes, Julien mentioned this when I tried to add a
>> >> > > > > similar patch to Xen to ignore them. I think it basically means
>> >> > > > > "present
>> >> > > > > but not running, you should start them!".
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > In addition this scheme
>> >> > > > > > wouldn't support the case where dom0 has more vcpus than pcpus
>> >> > > > > > on the
>> >> > > > > > system. Granted it is not very common and might even be
>> >> > > > > > detrimental for
>> >> > > > > > performances, but we should be able to support it.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > It's a bit of an edge case, for sure. I guess it wouldn't be
>> >> > > > > totally
>> >> > > > > unreasonable to say that if you use this sort of configuration
>> >> > > > > you may
>> >> > > > > not get cpufreq support.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Ian, what do you think about this?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > All the options suck in one way or another AFAICT. I think we are
>> >> > > > > going
>> >> > > > > to be looking for the least bad solution not necessarily a good
>> >> > > > > one.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Fundamentally are we trying to avoid having to have a i2c
>> >> > > > > subsystem etc
>> >> > > > > in the hypervisor to be be able to change the voltages
>> >> > > > > before/after
>> >> > > > > changing the frequency?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > We can't just say "that's part of the cpufreq driver" since
>> >> > > > > different
>> >> > > > > boards using the same SoC might use different voltage regulators,
>> >> > > > > over
>> >> > > > > i2c or some other bus etc, so we end up with a matrix.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > It's arguable that we should be letting dom0 poke at that
>> >> > > > > regulator
>> >> > > > > functionality anyway, at least not all of it. Taking that ability
>> >> > > > > away
>> >> > > > > would necessarily imply more platform specific functionality in
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > hypervisor.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Right.
>> >> > > > I am afraid that in order to avoid more code in Xen, we end up with
>> >> > > > an
>> >> > > > unmaintainable interface and unupstreamable hacks in dom0.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That's what I'm worried about to. Hence I'm wondering if we should
>> >> > > just
>> >> > > do this in the hypervisor.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Although there are a myriad of them the parts used to do voltage
>> >> > > control
>> >> > > tend to be fairly simple.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > One concern I have is that i2c busses also tend to have other things
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > them which dom0 might legitimately access (e.g. rtc), I'm not sure
>> >> > > what
>> >> > > to suggest here.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would try to avoid i2c transactions in Xen. I2C driver is quite
>> >> > complicated in Linux kernel. It consists of several parts - common
>> >> > core + platform specific. I'm pretty sure Xen should not handle this.
>> >> > I think that establishing of event channel for frequency changing is a
>> >> > good idea. It would be good to try to implement this. In process of
>> >> > implementation we will see what is need to be resolved.
>> >>
>> >> OK, that's reasonable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The only question here is how to pass physical cpu to dom0.
>> >>
>> >> We can use a device tree based interface to pass the information to
>> >> dom0, but requiring a number of dom0 vcpus equal to the number of
>> >> physical cpus and in addition to that having to pin the vcpus each to a
>> >> different pcpu is quite a stringent limitation. However I don't know the
>> >> frequency changing interfaces in Linux well enough to know how hard
>> >> would be to lift it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Regarding x86.
>> >> > I'm not sure but maybe ACPI interface encapsulate voltage changing as
>> >> > well?
>> >>
>> >> I think so (but I am not an expert on that).
>> >
>> > The usual states are P and C states. The P states is the closes to what you
>> > are looking at:
>> >
>> > struct acpi_processor_px {
>> > u64 core_frequency; /* megahertz */
>> > u64 power; /* milliWatts */
>> > u64 transition_latency; /* microseconds */
>> > u64 bus_master_latency; /* microseconds */
>> > u64 control; /* control value */
>> > u64 status; /* success indicator */
>> > };
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Andrii
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Andrii Tseglytskyi | Embedded Dev
>> >> > GlobalLogic
>> >> > www.globallogic.com
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Xen-devel mailing list
>> >> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>
>>
>> Cpufreq driver implementation.
>> ____________
>> / \
>> | xenpm tool |
>> \____________/
>> Dom0 kernel user-space
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ________________ _____
>> / \ / \ CPU
>> | DevTree Parser | /->| ARM | driver
>> \________________/ | \_____/
>> Dom0 kernel | |
>> -----------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------
>> | |
>> _____________________________________ | |
>> | __________ ___________ | | |
>> | / \ / \ | | |
>> | | ondemand | | userspace | | | |
>> Registered | \__________/ \___________/ | | |
>> cpufreq | _____________ ___________ | | |
>> governor | / \ / \ | | |
>> | | performance | | powersave | | | |
>> | \_____________/ \___________/ | | |
>> |_____________________________________| | |
>> ^ | |
>> | | |
>> ______|_______ | |
>> / \ | | Change
>> | cpufreq core |-------------/ | frequency
>> \______________/ set/get freq |
>> commands |
>> Xen |
>> -----------------------------------------------------------|--------------
>> Hardware __V__
>> | |
>> | CPU |
>> |_____|
>>
>>
>> Description of the implementation:
>> Cpufreq core and registered cpufreq governors are located in xen. Dom0
>> has CPU driver
>> which can only change frequency of the physical CPUs. In addition this driver
>> can change CPUs regulator voltage. I'll reuse some ACPI-specific
>> variables for ARM.
>> Thus I can make minimum modification in the xen cpufreq driver and all
>> utilities
>> (as xenpm) will be working without modification if the xen code. In first
>> implementation xenpm tool won't show information about C-states, but it can
>> show
>> information about P-states and can change cpufreq parameters and
>> change governor.
>> DevTree parser is a part of the CPU driver in Dom0 and it will read
>> information
>> from /cpus/cpu@0/private_data path instead of the original /cpus path.
>>
>> Steps of the initialization:
>> 1. Xen copies all cpu@xxxxxx@N nodes (from input device tree) with
>> properties to
>> /cpus/cpu@0/private_data node (device tree for Dom0). Thus we can have
>> any number
>> of VCPUs in Dom0 and we give all information about all physical CPUs in
>> the private_data node.
>>
>> 2. Driver in Dom0 will parse /cpus/cpu@0/private_data path instead of the
>> /cpus
>> path and give the information about CPUs parameters to the hypervisor via
>> XENPF_set_processor_pminfo hypercall. (Some parameters are calculated in the
>> Dom0 driver and can not be calculated in the hypervisor).
>>
>> 3. Cpufreq core driver in the hypervisor will communicate via some interface
>> with Dom0 (event channel can be used to notify Dom0) and give some commands
>> to the CPU driver in Dom0. Those command are set/get frequency, etc.
>>
>> Can I implement cpufreq driver in this way?
>
> The architecture looks sane to me. As Konrad pointed out, the difficulty
> here is to be able to upstream the changes to the Linux driver in 2),
> that you later in the thread identified as
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c.
I'll write driver drivers/xen/xen-cpufreq.c and it replace original
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
And in the original cpufreq-cpu0 driver I'll chande only one string -
path in the device tree
with the settings for the CPUs opp:
string
np = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus/cpu@0");
will changed to:
np = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus/cpu@0/private_data/cpu@0");
> If the changes are not invasive and you manage to upstream them in
> Linux, I am all for this solution.
In Linux kernel I should make few changes:
1. Enable CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE
with disabled CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
2. Enable CONFIG_GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0
with disabled CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
I mean make those configs dependent on
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ or CONFIX_XEN_DOM0
instead of
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
Oleksandr Dmytryshyn | Product Engineering and Development
GlobalLogic
M +38.067.382.2525
www.globallogic.com
http://www.globallogic.com/email_disclaimer.txt
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |