Re: [PATCH v10 10/11] arm64: idle: export arch_cpu_idle()

[Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>]

Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> writes:

> 在 2025/4/14 11:46, Ankur Arora 写道:
>> Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>
>>> 在 2025/4/12 04:57, Ankur Arora 写道:
>>>> Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 在 2025/2/19 05:33, Ankur Arora 写道:
>>>>>> Needed for cpuidle-haltpoll.
>>>>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c | 1 +
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>>>>> index 05cfb347ec26..b85ba0df9b02 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>>>>> @@ -43,3 +43,4 @@ void __cpuidle arch_cpu_idle(void)
>>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>>     	cpu_do_idle();
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Ankur,
>>>>>
>>>>> With haltpoll_driver registered, arch_cpu_idle() on x86 can select
>>>>> mwait_idle() in idle threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> It use MONITOR sets up an effective address range that is monitored
>>>>> for write-to-memory activities; MWAIT places the processor in
>>>>> an optimized state (this may vary between different implementations)
>>>>> until a write to the monitored address range occurs.
>>>> MWAIT is more capable than WFE -- it allows selection of deeper idle
>>>> state. IIRC C2/C3.
>>>>
>>>>> Should arch_cpu_idle() on arm64 also use the LDXR/WFE
>>>>> to avoid wakeup IPI like x86 monitor/mwait?
>>>> Avoiding the wakeup IPI needs TIF_NR_POLLING and polling in idle support
>>>> that this series adds.
>>>> As Haris notes, the negative with only using WFE is that it only allows
>>>> a single idle state, one that is fairly shallow because the event-stream
>>>> causes a wakeup every 100us.
>>>> --
>>>> ankur
>>>
>>> Hi, Ankur and Haris
>>>
>>> Got it, thanks for explaination :)
>>>
>>> Comparing sched-pipe performance on Rund with Yitian 710, *IPC improved 35%*:
>> Thanks for testing Shuai. I wasn't expecting the IPC to improve by quite
>> that much :). The reduced instructions make sense since we don't have to
>> handle the IRQ anymore but we would spend some of the saved cycles
>> waiting in WFE instead.
>> I'm not familiar with the Yitian 710. Can you check if you are running
>> with WFE? That's the __smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait() path vs the
>> __smp_cond_load_relaxed_spinwait() path in [0]. Same question for the
>> Kunpeng 920.
>
> Yes, it running with __smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait().
>
> I use perf-probe to check if WFE is available in Guest:
>
> perf probe 'arch_timer_evtstrm_available%return r=$retval'
> perf record -e probe:arch_timer_evtstrm_available__return -aR sleep 1
> perf script
> swapper       0 [000]  1360.063049: probe:arch_timer_evtstrm_available__return: (ffff800080a5c640 <- ffff800080d42764) r=0x1
>
> arch_timer_evtstrm_available returns true, so
> __smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait() is used.

Great. Thanks for checking.

>> Also, I'm working on a new version of the series in [1]. Would you be
>> okay trying that out?
>
> Sure. Please cc me when you send out a new version.

Will do. Thanks!

--
ankur