From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle: menu: Fixes, optimizations and cleanups
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:02:36 -0700
Message-ID: <003d01d4602c$905b5840$b11208c0$@net>
References: <000301d45ecb$4f002a90$ed007fb0$@net> <003801d45f54$3d9b0c50$b8d124f0$@net> <CAJZ5v0h4sVoen++nF1cYvqQeY3qN0B1aP42e8A4SZwxzBV3NVA@mail.gmail.com> 9pWMgRJJQ3psd9pWRgA8E4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: 9pWMgRJJQ3psd9pWRgA8E4
Content-Language: en-ca
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>, 'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 'Daniel Lezcano' <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, 'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

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