Re: [PATCH 3/7] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:21:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:54:06PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:04:53 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > People are starting to grow their own idle implementations in various
> > > disgusting ways. Collapse the lot and use the generic idle code to
> > > provide a proper idle cycle implementation.
> > > 
> > +Paul
> > 
> > RCU and others rely on is_idle_task() might be broken with the
> > consolidated idle code since caller of do_idle may have pid != 0.
> > 
> > Should we use TS_POLL or introduce a new flag to identify idle task?
> 
> PF_IDLE would be my preference, I checked and we seem to have a grand
> total of 2 unused task_struct::flags left ;-)

As long as RCU has some reliable way to identify an idle task, I am
good.  But I have to ask -- why can't idle injection coordinate with
the existing idle tasks rather than temporarily making alternative
idle tasks?

							Thanx, Paul

> > The reason why idle injection code does not inform RCU is that we have
> > known short period of idle time which does not impact RCU grace period.
> > 
> > On the other side, I see idle injection code is working with this
> > patchset with workaround in s_idle_task() by checking TS_POLL flag.
> > But the efficiency is down by ~30%. i.e.
> > 
> > before: inject 25% time to get 23-24% package idle
> > after: inject 25% time to get 16-17% package idle
> > 
> > Still looking into improvement.
> 
> So the quick hack is to make acpi_idle/intel_idle use the highest
> possible C-state when pid!=0 && PF_IDLE.
> 
> Ideally though I'd see some of the QoS ramifications explored. Because
> forcing the CPU into the highest C-state basically invalidates the
> entire QoS stack.
> 
> So either make QoS and this idle injection stuff mutually exclusive in a
> very explicit way -- disable the QoS interface when you enable one of
> these idle injectors AND fail to engage the idle injectors when an
> incompatible QoS setting is pre-existing.
> 
> Or come up with something smarter.
> 
> You also have to explore the case of higher priority tasks messing with
> the proper operation of your injectors, this one is harder to deal with.
>