RE: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle: menu: Fixes, optimizations and cleanups

["Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>]

On 2018.10.09 03:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

...[snip]...

> While at it, could you test the appended patch
> (on top of the previous 8) for me please?
>
> I think that this code can be simplified now.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c |    8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> @@ -371,12 +371,12 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr
> 		if (s->target_residency > predicted_us) {
> 			/*
> 			 * Use a physical idle state, not busy polling, unless
> -			 * a timer is going to trigger really really soon.
> +			 * a timer is going to trigger soon enough.
> 			 */
> 			if ((drv->states[idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING) &&
> -			    i == idx + 1 && latency_req > s->exit_latency &&
> -			    data->next_timer_us > max_t(unsigned int, 20,
> -							s->target_residency)) {
> +			    s->exit_latency <= latency_req &&
> +			    s->target_residency <= data->next_timer_us) {
> +				predicted_us = s->target_residency;
> 				idx = i;
> 				break;
> 			}

It seems to work fine.
I was unable to detect any difference between the 8 patch set and with
this additional patch for any of the tests that I ran. (at least beyond
noise and/or experimental error.)

Note: I didn't publish any of the pretty graphs.

... Doug