[PATCH RFC idle 2/3] arm: Avoid invoking RCU when CPU is idle

[paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 02:20:26PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> > The two options I see are:
> >> > 
> >> > 1.	Rip tracing out of the inner idle loops and everything that
> >> > 	they invoke.
> >> 
> >> What I suggested above.  But as I said I know sh*t about that tracing 
> >> implementation so that's an easy suggestion for me to make.
> >
> > Works for me as well.  ;-)
> 
> While I must admit not having a better suggestion, I for one would vote
> strongly against removing tracing from the idle path.
> 
> Being a PM developer and maintainer, much of the code I work on and
> maintain happens to be run in the bowels of the idle path.  Not having
> the ability to trace this code would be a major step backwards IMO.

OK...

What if the tracing code between the rcu_idle_enter() and the
rcu_idle_exit() had to be enclosed in a wrapper?  For example,
the tracing in cpuidle_idle_call() might appear as follows:

	RCU_NONIDLE(
		trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, next_state, dev->cpu);
		trace_cpu_idle(next_state, dev->cpu);
	);

	entered_state = target_state->enter(dev, drv, next_state);

	RCU_NONIDLE(
		trace_power_end(dev->cpu);
		trace_cpu_idle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu);
	);

The RCU_NONIDLE() macro would do rcu_idle_exit(), execute its
argument, then do rcu_idle_enter().  (Credit to Steven Rostedt
for suggesting this.)  Given the possibility of code invoked both
from idle and not-idle, I have some changes to rcu to allow nesting
of rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit().

Would that work for you?

							Thanx, Paul