Dave Martin | 7fe31d2 | 2012-07-17 14:25:42 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | Cluster-wide Power-up/power-down race avoidance algorithm |
| 2 | ========================================================= |
| 3 | |
| 4 | This file documents the algorithm which is used to coordinate CPU and |
| 5 | cluster setup and teardown operations and to manage hardware coherency |
| 6 | controls safely. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | The section "Rationale" explains what the algorithm is for and why it is |
| 9 | needed. "Basic model" explains general concepts using a simplified view |
| 10 | of the system. The other sections explain the actual details of the |
| 11 | algorithm in use. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | Rationale |
| 15 | --------- |
| 16 | |
| 17 | In a system containing multiple CPUs, it is desirable to have the |
| 18 | ability to turn off individual CPUs when the system is idle, reducing |
| 19 | power consumption and thermal dissipation. |
| 20 | |
| 21 | In a system containing multiple clusters of CPUs, it is also desirable |
| 22 | to have the ability to turn off entire clusters. |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Turning entire clusters off and on is a risky business, because it |
| 25 | involves performing potentially destructive operations affecting a group |
| 26 | of independently running CPUs, while the OS continues to run. This |
| 27 | means that we need some coordination in order to ensure that critical |
| 28 | cluster-level operations are only performed when it is truly safe to do |
| 29 | so. |
| 30 | |
| 31 | Simple locking may not be sufficient to solve this problem, because |
| 32 | mechanisms like Linux spinlocks may rely on coherency mechanisms which |
| 33 | are not immediately enabled when a cluster powers up. Since enabling or |
| 34 | disabling those mechanisms may itself be a non-atomic operation (such as |
| 35 | writing some hardware registers and invalidating large caches), other |
| 36 | methods of coordination are required in order to guarantee safe |
| 37 | power-down and power-up at the cluster level. |
| 38 | |
| 39 | The mechanism presented in this document describes a coherent memory |
| 40 | based protocol for performing the needed coordination. It aims to be as |
| 41 | lightweight as possible, while providing the required safety properties. |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 44 | Basic model |
| 45 | ----------- |
| 46 | |
| 47 | Each cluster and CPU is assigned a state, as follows: |
| 48 | |
| 49 | DOWN |
| 50 | COMING_UP |
| 51 | UP |
| 52 | GOING_DOWN |
| 53 | |
| 54 | +---------> UP ----------+ |
| 55 | | v |
| 56 | |
| 57 | COMING_UP GOING_DOWN |
| 58 | |
| 59 | ^ | |
| 60 | +--------- DOWN <--------+ |
| 61 | |
| 62 | |
| 63 | DOWN: The CPU or cluster is not coherent, and is either powered off or |
| 64 | suspended, or is ready to be powered off or suspended. |
| 65 | |
| 66 | COMING_UP: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the UP state. |
| 67 | It may be part way through the process of initialisation and |
| 68 | enabling coherency. |
| 69 | |
| 70 | UP: The CPU or cluster is active and coherent at the hardware |
| 71 | level. A CPU in this state is not necessarily being used |
| 72 | actively by the kernel. |
| 73 | |
| 74 | GOING_DOWN: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the DOWN |
| 75 | state. It may be part way through the process of teardown and |
| 76 | coherency exit. |
| 77 | |
| 78 | |
| 79 | Each CPU has one of these states assigned to it at any point in time. |
| 80 | The CPU states are described in the "CPU state" section, below. |
| 81 | |
| 82 | Each cluster is also assigned a state, but it is necessary to split the |
| 83 | state value into two parts (the "cluster" state and "inbound" state) and |
| 84 | to introduce additional states in order to avoid races between different |
| 85 | CPUs in the cluster simultaneously modifying the state. The cluster- |
| 86 | level states are described in the "Cluster state" section. |
| 87 | |
| 88 | To help distinguish the CPU states from cluster states in this |
| 89 | discussion, the state names are given a CPU_ prefix for the CPU states, |
| 90 | and a CLUSTER_ or INBOUND_ prefix for the cluster states. |
| 91 | |
| 92 | |
| 93 | CPU state |
| 94 | --------- |
| 95 | |
| 96 | In this algorithm, each individual core in a multi-core processor is |
| 97 | referred to as a "CPU". CPUs are assumed to be single-threaded: |
| 98 | therefore, a CPU can only be doing one thing at a single point in time. |
| 99 | |
| 100 | This means that CPUs fit the basic model closely. |
| 101 | |
| 102 | The algorithm defines the following states for each CPU in the system: |
| 103 | |
| 104 | CPU_DOWN |
| 105 | CPU_COMING_UP |
| 106 | CPU_UP |
| 107 | CPU_GOING_DOWN |
| 108 | |
| 109 | cluster setup and |
| 110 | CPU setup complete policy decision |
| 111 | +-----------> CPU_UP ------------+ |
| 112 | | v |
| 113 | |
| 114 | CPU_COMING_UP CPU_GOING_DOWN |
| 115 | |
| 116 | ^ | |
| 117 | +----------- CPU_DOWN <----------+ |
| 118 | policy decision CPU teardown complete |
| 119 | or hardware event |
| 120 | |
| 121 | |
| 122 | The definitions of the four states correspond closely to the states of |
| 123 | the basic model. |
| 124 | |
| 125 | Transitions between states occur as follows. |
| 126 | |
| 127 | A trigger event (spontaneous) means that the CPU can transition to the |
| 128 | next state as a result of making local progress only, with no |
| 129 | requirement for any external event to happen. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | |
| 132 | CPU_DOWN: |
| 133 | |
| 134 | A CPU reaches the CPU_DOWN state when it is ready for |
| 135 | power-down. On reaching this state, the CPU will typically |
| 136 | power itself down or suspend itself, via a WFI instruction or a |
| 137 | firmware call. |
| 138 | |
| 139 | Next state: CPU_COMING_UP |
| 140 | Conditions: none |
| 141 | |
| 142 | Trigger events: |
| 143 | |
| 144 | a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting |
| 145 | from a policy decision on another CPU; |
| 146 | |
| 147 | b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt. |
| 148 | |
| 149 | |
| 150 | CPU_COMING_UP: |
| 151 | |
| 152 | A CPU cannot start participating in hardware coherency until the |
| 153 | cluster is set up and coherent. If the cluster is not ready, |
| 154 | then the CPU will wait in the CPU_COMING_UP state until the |
| 155 | cluster has been set up. |
| 156 | |
| 157 | Next state: CPU_UP |
| 158 | Conditions: The CPU's parent cluster must be in CLUSTER_UP. |
| 159 | Trigger events: Transition of the parent cluster to CLUSTER_UP. |
| 160 | |
| 161 | Refer to the "Cluster state" section for a description of the |
| 162 | CLUSTER_UP state. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 165 | CPU_UP: |
| 166 | When a CPU reaches the CPU_UP state, it is safe for the CPU to |
| 167 | start participating in local coherency. |
| 168 | |
| 169 | This is done by jumping to the kernel's CPU resume code. |
| 170 | |
| 171 | Note that the definition of this state is slightly different |
| 172 | from the basic model definition: CPU_UP does not mean that the |
| 173 | CPU is coherent yet, but it does mean that it is safe to resume |
| 174 | the kernel. The kernel handles the rest of the resume |
| 175 | procedure, so the remaining steps are not visible as part of the |
| 176 | race avoidance algorithm. |
| 177 | |
| 178 | The CPU remains in this state until an explicit policy decision |
| 179 | is made to shut down or suspend the CPU. |
| 180 | |
| 181 | Next state: CPU_GOING_DOWN |
| 182 | Conditions: none |
| 183 | Trigger events: explicit policy decision |
| 184 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | CPU_GOING_DOWN: |
| 187 | |
| 188 | While in this state, the CPU exits coherency, including any |
| 189 | operations required to achieve this (such as cleaning data |
| 190 | caches). |
| 191 | |
| 192 | Next state: CPU_DOWN |
| 193 | Conditions: local CPU teardown complete |
| 194 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 195 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | Cluster state |
| 198 | ------------- |
| 199 | |
| 200 | A cluster is a group of connected CPUs with some common resources. |
| 201 | Because a cluster contains multiple CPUs, it can be doing multiple |
| 202 | things at the same time. This has some implications. In particular, a |
| 203 | CPU can start up while another CPU is tearing the cluster down. |
| 204 | |
| 205 | In this discussion, the "outbound side" is the view of the cluster state |
| 206 | as seen by a CPU tearing the cluster down. The "inbound side" is the |
| 207 | view of the cluster state as seen by a CPU setting the CPU up. |
| 208 | |
| 209 | In order to enable safe coordination in such situations, it is important |
| 210 | that a CPU which is setting up the cluster can advertise its state |
| 211 | independently of the CPU which is tearing down the cluster. For this |
| 212 | reason, the cluster state is split into two parts: |
| 213 | |
| 214 | "cluster" state: The global state of the cluster; or the state |
| 215 | on the outbound side: |
| 216 | |
| 217 | CLUSTER_DOWN |
| 218 | CLUSTER_UP |
| 219 | CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN |
| 220 | |
| 221 | "inbound" state: The state of the cluster on the inbound side. |
| 222 | |
| 223 | INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP |
| 224 | INBOUND_COMING_UP |
| 225 | |
| 226 | |
| 227 | The different pairings of these states results in six possible |
| 228 | states for the cluster as a whole: |
| 229 | |
| 230 | CLUSTER_UP |
| 231 | +==========> INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP -------------+ |
| 232 | # | |
| 233 | | |
| 234 | CLUSTER_UP <----+ | |
| 235 | INBOUND_COMING_UP | v |
| 236 | |
| 237 | ^ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN |
| 238 | # INBOUND_COMING_UP <=== INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP |
| 239 | |
| 240 | CLUSTER_DOWN | | |
| 241 | INBOUND_COMING_UP <----+ | |
| 242 | | |
| 243 | ^ | |
| 244 | +=========== CLUSTER_DOWN <------------+ |
| 245 | INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP |
| 246 | |
| 247 | Transitions -----> can only be made by the outbound CPU, and |
| 248 | only involve changes to the "cluster" state. |
| 249 | |
| 250 | Transitions ===##> can only be made by the inbound CPU, and only |
| 251 | involve changes to the "inbound" state, except where there is no |
| 252 | further transition possible on the outbound side (i.e., the |
| 253 | outbound CPU has put the cluster into the CLUSTER_DOWN state). |
| 254 | |
| 255 | The race avoidance algorithm does not provide a way to determine |
| 256 | which exact CPUs within the cluster play these roles. This must |
| 257 | be decided in advance by some other means. Refer to the section |
| 258 | "Last man and first man selection" for more explanation. |
| 259 | |
| 260 | |
| 261 | CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP is the only state where the |
| 262 | cluster can actually be powered down. |
| 263 | |
| 264 | The parallelism of the inbound and outbound CPUs is observed by |
| 265 | the existence of two different paths from CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/ |
| 266 | INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (corresponding to GOING_DOWN in the basic |
| 267 | model) to CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (corresponding to |
| 268 | COMING_UP in the basic model). The second path avoids cluster |
| 269 | teardown completely. |
| 270 | |
| 271 | CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP is equivalent to UP in the basic |
| 272 | model. The final transition to CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP |
| 273 | is trivial and merely resets the state machine ready for the |
| 274 | next cycle. |
| 275 | |
| 276 | Details of the allowable transitions follow. |
| 277 | |
| 278 | The next state in each case is notated |
| 279 | |
| 280 | <cluster state>/<inbound state> (<transitioner>) |
| 281 | |
| 282 | where the <transitioner> is the side on which the transition |
| 283 | can occur; either the inbound or the outbound side. |
| 284 | |
| 285 | |
| 286 | CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP: |
| 287 | |
| 288 | Next state: CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound) |
| 289 | Conditions: none |
| 290 | Trigger events: |
| 291 | |
| 292 | a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting |
| 293 | from a policy decision on another CPU; |
| 294 | |
| 295 | b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt. |
| 296 | |
| 297 | |
| 298 | CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP: |
| 299 | |
| 300 | In this state, an inbound CPU sets up the cluster, including |
| 301 | enabling of hardware coherency at the cluster level and any |
| 302 | other operations (such as cache invalidation) which are required |
| 303 | in order to achieve this. |
| 304 | |
| 305 | The purpose of this state is to do sufficient cluster-level |
| 306 | setup to enable other CPUs in the cluster to enter coherency |
| 307 | safely. |
| 308 | |
| 309 | Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound) |
| 310 | Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware coherency complete |
| 311 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 312 | |
| 313 | |
| 314 | CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP: |
| 315 | |
| 316 | Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is |
| 317 | enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely |
| 318 | enter coherency. |
| 319 | |
| 320 | This is a transient state, leading immediately to |
| 321 | CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP. All other CPUs on the cluster |
| 322 | should consider treat these two states as equivalent. |
| 323 | |
| 324 | Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (inbound) |
| 325 | Conditions: none |
| 326 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 327 | |
| 328 | |
| 329 | CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP: |
| 330 | |
| 331 | Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is |
| 332 | enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely |
| 333 | enter coherency. |
| 334 | |
| 335 | The cluster will remain in this state until a policy decision is |
| 336 | made to power the cluster down. |
| 337 | |
| 338 | Next state: CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound) |
| 339 | Conditions: none |
| 340 | Trigger events: policy decision to power down the cluster |
| 341 | |
| 342 | |
| 343 | CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP: |
| 344 | |
| 345 | An outbound CPU is tearing the cluster down. The selected CPU |
| 346 | must wait in this state until all CPUs in the cluster are in the |
| 347 | CPU_DOWN state. |
| 348 | |
| 349 | When all CPUs are in the CPU_DOWN state, the cluster can be torn |
| 350 | down, for example by cleaning data caches and exiting |
| 351 | cluster-level coherency. |
| 352 | |
| 353 | To avoid wasteful unnecessary teardown operations, the outbound |
| 354 | should check the inbound cluster state for asynchronous |
| 355 | transitions to INBOUND_COMING_UP. Alternatively, individual |
| 356 | CPUs can be checked for entry into CPU_COMING_UP or CPU_UP. |
| 357 | |
| 358 | |
| 359 | Next states: |
| 360 | |
| 361 | CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound) |
| 362 | Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off |
| 363 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 364 | |
| 365 | CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound) |
| 366 | Conditions: none |
| 367 | Trigger events: |
| 368 | |
| 369 | a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, |
| 370 | resulting from a policy decision on another |
| 371 | CPU; |
| 372 | |
| 373 | b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt. |
| 374 | |
| 375 | |
| 376 | CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP: |
| 377 | |
| 378 | The cluster is (or was) being torn down, but another CPU has |
| 379 | come online in the meantime and is trying to set up the cluster |
| 380 | again. |
| 381 | |
| 382 | If the outbound CPU observes this state, it has two choices: |
| 383 | |
| 384 | a) back out of teardown, restoring the cluster to the |
| 385 | CLUSTER_UP state; |
| 386 | |
| 387 | b) finish tearing the cluster down and put the cluster |
| 388 | in the CLUSTER_DOWN state; the inbound CPU will |
| 389 | set up the cluster again from there. |
| 390 | |
| 391 | Choice (a) permits the removal of some latency by avoiding |
| 392 | unnecessary teardown and setup operations in situations where |
| 393 | the cluster is not really going to be powered down. |
| 394 | |
| 395 | |
| 396 | Next states: |
| 397 | |
| 398 | CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound) |
| 399 | Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware |
| 400 | coherency complete |
| 401 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 402 | |
| 403 | CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound) |
| 404 | Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off |
| 405 | Trigger events: (spontaneous) |
| 406 | |
| 407 | |
| 408 | Last man and First man selection |
| 409 | -------------------------------- |
| 410 | |
| 411 | The CPU which performs cluster tear-down operations on the outbound side |
| 412 | is commonly referred to as the "last man". |
| 413 | |
| 414 | The CPU which performs cluster setup on the inbound side is commonly |
| 415 | referred to as the "first man". |
| 416 | |
| 417 | The race avoidance algorithm documented above does not provide a |
| 418 | mechanism to choose which CPUs should play these roles. |
| 419 | |
| 420 | |
| 421 | Last man: |
| 422 | |
| 423 | When shutting down the cluster, all the CPUs involved are initially |
| 424 | executing Linux and hence coherent. Therefore, ordinary spinlocks can |
| 425 | be used to select a last man safely, before the CPUs become |
| 426 | non-coherent. |
| 427 | |
| 428 | |
| 429 | First man: |
| 430 | |
| 431 | Because CPUs may power up asynchronously in response to external wake-up |
| 432 | events, a dynamic mechanism is needed to make sure that only one CPU |
| 433 | attempts to play the first man role and do the cluster-level |
| 434 | initialisation: any other CPUs must wait for this to complete before |
| 435 | proceeding. |
| 436 | |
| 437 | Cluster-level initialisation may involve actions such as configuring |
| 438 | coherency controls in the bus fabric. |
| 439 | |
| 440 | The current implementation in mcpm_head.S uses a separate mutual exclusion |
| 441 | mechanism to do this arbitration. This mechanism is documented in |
| 442 | detail in vlocks.txt. |
| 443 | |
| 444 | |
| 445 | Features and Limitations |
| 446 | ------------------------ |
| 447 | |
| 448 | Implementation: |
| 449 | |
| 450 | The current ARM-based implementation is split between |
| 451 | arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S (low-level inbound CPU operations) and |
| 452 | arch/arm/common/mcpm_entry.c (everything else): |
| 453 | |
| 454 | __mcpm_cpu_going_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the |
| 455 | CPU_GOING_DOWN state. |
| 456 | |
| 457 | __mcpm_cpu_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the CPU_DOWN |
| 458 | state. |
| 459 | |
| 460 | A CPU transitions to CPU_COMING_UP and then to CPU_UP via the |
| 461 | low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This could |
| 462 | involve CPU-specific setup code, but in the current |
| 463 | implementation it does not. |
| 464 | |
| 465 | __mcpm_outbound_enter_critical() and __mcpm_outbound_leave_critical() |
| 466 | handle transitions from CLUSTER_UP to CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN |
| 467 | and from there to CLUSTER_DOWN or back to CLUSTER_UP (in |
| 468 | the case of an aborted cluster power-down). |
| 469 | |
| 470 | These functions are more complex than the __mcpm_cpu_*() |
| 471 | functions due to the extra inter-CPU coordination which |
| 472 | is needed for safe transitions at the cluster level. |
| 473 | |
| 474 | A cluster transitions from CLUSTER_DOWN back to CLUSTER_UP via |
| 475 | the low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This |
| 476 | typically involves platform-specific setup code, |
| 477 | provided by the platform-specific power_up_setup |
| 478 | function registered via mcpm_sync_init. |
| 479 | |
| 480 | Deep topologies: |
| 481 | |
| 482 | As currently described and implemented, the algorithm does not |
| 483 | support CPU topologies involving more than two levels (i.e., |
| 484 | clusters of clusters are not supported). The algorithm could be |
| 485 | extended by replicating the cluster-level states for the |
| 486 | additional topological levels, and modifying the transition |
| 487 | rules for the intermediate (non-outermost) cluster levels. |
| 488 | |
| 489 | |
| 490 | Colophon |
| 491 | -------- |
| 492 | |
| 493 | Originally created and documented by Dave Martin for Linaro Limited, in |
| 494 | collaboration with Nicolas Pitre and Achin Gupta. |
| 495 | |
| 496 | Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Linaro Limited |
| 497 | Distributed under the terms of Version 2 of the GNU General Public |
| 498 | License, as defined in linux/COPYING. |