From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] cpuidle: governors: menu: Avoid selecting states with too much latency
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:37:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMLQmjKCJ5-hl3iA@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5043159.31r3eYUQgx@rafael.j.wysocki>
Le Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:25:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Occasionally, the exit latency of the idle state selected by the menu
> governor may exceed the PM QoS CPU wakeup latency limit. Namely, if the
> scheduler tick has been stopped already and predicted_ns is greater than
> the tick period length, the governor may return an idle state whose exit
> latency exceeds latency_req because that decision is made before
> checking the current idle state's exit latency.
>
> For instance, say that there are 3 idle states, 0, 1, and 2. For idle
> states 0 and 1, the exit latency is equal to the target residency and
> the values are 0 and 5 us, respectively. State 2 is deeper and has the
> exit latency and target residency of 200 us and 2 ms (which is greater
> than the tick period length), respectively.
>
> Say that predicted_ns is equal to TICK_NSEC and the PM QoS latency
> limit is 20 us. After the first two iterations of the main loop in
> menu_select(), idx becomes 1 and in the third iteration of it the target
> residency of the current state (state 2) is greater than predicted_ns.
> State 2 is not a polling one and predicted_ns is not less than TICK_NSEC,
> so the check on whether or not the tick has been stopped is done. Say
> that the tick has been stopped already and there are no imminent timers
> (that is, delta_tick is greater than the target residency of state 2).
> In that case, idx becomes 2 and it is returned immediately, but the exit
> latency of state 2 exceeds the latency limit.
>
> Address this issue by modifying the code to compare the exit latency of
> the current idle state (idle state i) with the latency limit before
> comparing its target residecy with predicted_ns, which allows one
> more exit_latency_ns check that becomes redundant to be dropped.
>
> However, after the above change, latency_req cannot take the predicted_ns
> value any more, which takes place after commit 38f83090f515 ("cpuidle:
> menu: Remove iowait influence"), because it may cause a polling state
> to be returned prematurely.
>
> In the context of the previous example say that predicted_ns is 3000 and
> the PM QoS latency limit is still 20 us. Additionally, say that idle
> state 0 is a polling one. Moving the exit_latency_ns check before the
> target_residency_ns one causes the loop to terminate in the second
> iteration, before the target_residency_ns check, so idle state 0 will be
> returned even though previously state 1 would be returned if there were
> no imminent timers.
>
> For this reason, remove the assignment of the predicted_ns value to
> latency_req from the code.
>
> Fixes: 5ef499cd571c ("cpuidle: menu: Handle stopped tick more aggressively")
> Cc: 4.17+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.17+
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Too late I guess but meanwhile:
Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-11 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-13 10:21 [PATCH v1 0/3] cpuidle: governors: menu: A fix, a corner case adjustment and a cleanup Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-13 10:25 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] cpuidle: governors: menu: Avoid selecting states with too much latency Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-13 19:13 ` Christian Loehle
2025-08-18 17:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-09-11 13:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2025-10-23 3:05 ` Doug Smythies
2025-10-23 14:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-10-23 16:02 ` Doug Smythies
2025-10-23 16:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-13 10:26 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] cpuidle: governors: menu: Rearrange main loop in menu_select() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-14 13:00 ` Christian Loehle
2025-09-11 13:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-08-13 10:29 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] cpuidle: governors: menu: Special-case nohz_full CPUs Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-14 14:09 ` Christian Loehle
2025-08-18 17:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-19 9:10 ` Christian Loehle
2025-08-19 11:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-09-11 14:17 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-09-11 17:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-09-18 15:07 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-09-23 17:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-02-08 15:59 ` Ionut Nechita (Wind River)
2026-02-20 13:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-28 20:16 ` [PATCH v1] cpuidle: governors: teo: " Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-29 19:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-08-31 21:30 ` Christian Loehle
2025-09-01 19:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aMLQmjKCJ5-hl3iA@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.