From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 6/7] sched: idle: Predict idle duration before stopping the tick Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:45:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20180305114542.GP25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1657351.s4RTvEoqBQ@aspire.rjw.lan> <2048240.1dZKXsSxFh@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2048240.1dZKXsSxFh@aspire.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Paul McKenney , Thomas Ilsche , Doug Smythies , Rik van Riel , Aubrey Li , Mike Galbraith , LKML , Linux PM List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:28:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/idle.c > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c > @@ -188,13 +188,14 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) > } else { > unsigned int duration_us; > > - tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(true); > - rcu_idle_enter(); > - > /* > * Ask the cpuidle framework to choose a convenient idle state. > */ > next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev, &duration_us); > + > + tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(duration_us > USEC_PER_SEC / HZ); > + rcu_idle_enter(); > + > entered_state = call_cpuidle(drv, dev, next_state); > /* > * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect on the outcome So I think this is entirely wrong, I would much rather see something like: tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(next_state->nohz); Where the selected state itself has the nohz property or not. We can always insert an extra state at whatever the right boundary point is for nohz if it doesn't line up with an existing point.