[Intel-gfx] [RFC 0/6] Haswell runtime PM support + D3
daniel at ffwll.ch
Mon Oct 28 17:10:02 CET 2013
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:09:11PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 17:30 -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > Hi
> > This RFC series adds runtime PM support on Haswell. The current implementation
> > puts the device in the PCI D3cold state when we decide to sleep. It uses the
> > same refcount+timeout idea from the PC8 code, but now through the Kernel runtime
> > PM infrastructure.
> > I saw Jesse and Imre are still playing with the power wells on Baytrail, so I
> > thought maybe they would take some time to do the whole D3 + runtime_pm thing,
> > so I decided to ressurrect some code I had, test it and send anyway.
> > The basic idea of this series is that it adds some functions that should be
> > reused when we add support for other platforms, but OTOH it completely relies on
> > the already-implemented PC8 support for saving+restoring everything on Haswell.
> > So even though the code is ready for Haswell, it's not ready for !Haswell.
> > So we'll only reach the zero refcount after we enable PC8, and we'll increment
> > the refcount just before disabling PC8. I thought we would need more register
> > save-restore code, but it seems the current save-restore code from PC8 is enough
> > to keep everything going. All I needed was to add some more put/get calls to
> > keep the device awake when needed.
> > Now here's the reason why this is still an RFC: I just added put/get calls to
> > the places I spotted problems while doing my basic tests. I basically tested
> > runtime PM while running Gnome and Xfce, and I also tested sysfs and debugfs. I
> > still didn't write the full test suite I've been promising to write: this will
> > be my next step. OTOH, the runtime PM support is disabled by default, so merging
> > these patches shouldn't really hurt.
> > But our driver has so many entry points that I just don't think we'll ever be
> > confident that we always wake up from D3 when needed, and I don't think we'll be
> > able to write a single test case that tests everything. So I fear this feature
> > will be just like the "unclaimed register" checking code: we'll be stuck on a
> > break-bisect-fix loop forever. And considering most people won't ever run the
> > runtime PM code, we may stay long periods of time without noticing the broken
> > state.
> > When we add support for BYT and other platforms we will have to rearrange the
> > PC8 code so that we move some things out of it to some common PM infrastructure
> > (i.e, dev_priv->pm). The first things I can think of are the code that counts
> > the current number of used CRTCs and the code that handles pc8.gpu_idle.
> > The interfaces for configuring the runtime PM support are the standard runtime
> > PM interfaces. Go to /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:00\:02.0/power/ and have some
> > fun. I suggest you to "echo 5 > autosuspend_delay_ms" and boot with
> > "i915.pc8_timeout=5" if you really want to test things.
> > Another thing which we could discuss is if we really want to keep PC8 and D3 as
> > separate features. Today they're separate features, where D3 is a "deeper" step
> > that can be disabled while PC8 is still enabled. This creates the problem that
> > we need to separately test/validate PC8-only and PC8+D3 (and possibly D3-only in
> > the future, depending on how we rearrange code). Since I can't really think of a
> > case where we would want PC8 but not D3, maybe we should kill the "PC8 without
> > D3" option.
> > Opinions? Bikesheds? Does this really looks like it can be resued on BYT? Jesse?
> > Imre?
> I read through the patchset, in general it looks good to me. I agree it
> would make sense to merge already now at least the parts that would
> enable others to sort out platform specific details like HW
> state/restore for !HSW.
> I'm also wondering where to place the get/put calls, here is my 2 cents
> about this, please correct me where I'm wrong: With RPM we want to
> control whether the whole device is in D0 or D3/D3_cold state, which is
> the coarsest granularity. While in D0 we also need a finer granularity
> control to gate as many clocks and power domains as we can (while others
> remain active preventing D3/D3_cold). For this we enable/disable PC8/RC6
> to let the HW do automatic gating, or we do this manually for example
> through power domains control.
> If this is correct we should try our best to only do fine grain control
> at the highest level and do RPM get/put only as a consequence. For
> example modeset code would only enable/disable whatever power domains
> are needed for the current mode and the power domain framework would do
> the RPM get/put. Your PC8 changes in your patchset are in accordance
> with this: at the highest level we only enable/disable PC8 which will do
> an RPM get/put if needed. Debugfs and other places where we need
> register access: atm you do only an RPM get/put around these, but this
> just ensures we are in D0, not that we have the needed power
> domains/clocks enabled. I guess this works for HSW, but it may not work
> on other platforms. One solution could be to do the same here as for
> modeset, we just enable/disable clocks and power domains around these
> places as needed and adjust the RPM refcount only as a consequence.
I haven't read through the patches, but overall we should only get/put the
most fine-grained power domain possible. If there's nesting going on (e.g.
nested power wells, or different runtime pm states like pc8/D3/...) then
the fine-grained power domains should in turn grab references for the next
level up. So if someone grabs the aux display references to do edid reads
(which on hsw disables pc8), this will also block D3. Same if we need one
of the display power wells, that should in turn prevent pc8 (again on
I know that the current code isn't there at all. But long-term this should
be the direction imo, otherwise we'll have a giant mess between the
runtime pm handling and the get/put callsites.
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
More information about the Intel-gfx