Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] idle: move the cpuidle entry point to the generic idle loop

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 01/30/2014 05:07 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 01/30/2014 06:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2014 02:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> proximity in the core code with what cpuidle is doing and not delegate
>>>>>> such interaction to arch code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Architectures implementing arch_cpu_idle() should simply enter
>>>>>> a cheap idle mode in the absence of a proper cpuidle driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned in my reply to Olof's comment on patch #5/6, here's a new
>>>>> version of this patch adding the safety local_irq_enable() to the core
>>>>> code.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- >8
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
>>>>> Subject: idle: move the cpuidle entry point to the generic idle loop
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a better
>>>>> proximity in the core code with what cpuidle is doing and not delegate
>>>>> such interaction to arch code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Architectures implementing arch_cpu_idle() should simply enter
>>>>> a cheap idle mode in the absence of a proper cpuidle driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases i.e. whether it is a cpuidle driver or the default
>>>>> arch_cpu_idle(), the calling convention expects IRQs to be disabled
>>>>> on entry and enabled on exit. There is a warning in place already but
>>>>> let's add a forced IRQ enable here as well.  This will allow for
>>>>> removing the forced IRQ enable some implementations do locally and
>>>>
>>>> Why would this patch allow for removing the forced IRQ enable that are
>>>> being done on some archs in arch_cpu_idle()? Isn't this patch expecting
>>>> the default arch_cpu_idle() to have re-enabled the interrupts after
>>>> exiting from the default idle state? Its supposed to only catch faulty
>>>> cpuidle drivers that haven't enabled IRQs on exit from idle state but
>>>> are expected to have done so, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Exact.  However x86 currently does this:
>>>
>>>   if (cpuidle_idle_call())
>>>           x86_idle();
>>>   else
>>>           local_irq_enable();
>>>
>>> So whenever cpuidle_idle_call() is successful then IRQs are
>>> unconditionally enabled whether or not the underlying cpuidle driver has
>>> properly done it or not.  And the reason is that some of the x86 cpuidle
>>> do fail to enable IRQs before returning.
>>>
>>> So the idea is to get rid of this unconditional IRQ enabling and let the
>>> core issue a warning instead (as well as enabling IRQs to allow the
>>> system to run).
>>
>> But what I don't get with your comment is the local_irq_enable is done from
>> the cpuidle common framework in 'cpuidle_enter_state' it is not done from the
>> arch specific backend cpuidle driver.
>
> Oh well... This certainly means we'll have to clean this mess as some
> drivers do it on their own while some others don't.  Some drivers also
> loop on !need_resched() while some others simply return on the first
> interrupt.

Ok, I think the mess is coming from 'default_idle' which does not 
re-enable the local_irq but used from different places like 
amd_e400_idle and apm_cpu_idle.

void default_idle(void)
{
         trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(1, smp_processor_id());
         safe_halt();
         trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, smp_processor_id());
}

Considering the system configured without cpuidle because this one 
*always* enable the local irq, we have the different cases:

x86_idle = default_idle();
==> local_irq_enable is missing

x86_idle = amd_e400_idle();
==> it calls local_irq_disable(); but in the idle loop context where the 
local irqs are already disabled.
==> if amd_e400_c1e_detected is true, the local_irq are enabled
==> otherwise no
==> default_idle is called from there and does not enable local_irqs


>> So the code above could be:
>>
>> 	if (cpuidle_idle_call())
>> 		x86_idle();
>>
>> without the else section, this local_irq_enable is pointless. Or may be I
>> missed something ?
>
> A later patch removes it anyway.  But if it is really necessary to
> enable interrupts then the core will do it but with a warning now.

This WARN should disappear. It was there because it was up to the 
backend cpuidle driver to enable the irq. But in the meantime, that was 
consolidated into a single place in the cpuidle framework so no need to 
try to catch errors.

What about (based on this patchset).

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 4505e2a..2d60cbb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ void arch_cpu_idle_dead(void)
  void arch_cpu_idle(void)
  {
         x86_idle();
+       local_irq_enable();
  }

  /*



-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog