Linux Power Management development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 17/17] intel_idle: Add ACPI _LPI support
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:56:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260713-aquatic-okapi-of-wind-9e657c@sudeepholla> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2280567.Icojqenx9y@rafael.j.wysocki>

On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 02:44:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> Allow intel_idle to use idle states information coming from ACPI _LPI
> objects by making it call acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() and, if
> that is successful, using the list of idle states produced by that
> function instead of the one coming from acpi_processor_evaluate_cst().
> 

May be it is lack of my knowledge. I always assumed intel_idle is fine
tuned with for specific intel cores. But now if the information is being
fetched from _LPI, what is the difference between intel_idle driver
and ACPI processor idle if the FFH backend can be MWAIT.

Couple of more questions below, all just for my understanding and it
doesn't add as a review comment.

> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 160 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 138 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
> index fedaa8142121..bcc2725769c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
> @@ -1779,6 +1779,7 @@ module_param_named(no_native, no_native, bool, 0444);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_native, "Ignore cpu specific (native) idle states in lieu of ACPI idle states");
>  
>  static struct acpi_processor_power acpi_state_table __initdata;
> +static bool acpi_lpi_available __initdata;
>  
>  /**
>   * intel_idle_cst_usable - Check if the _CST information can be used.
> @@ -1803,18 +1804,37 @@ static bool __init intel_idle_cst_usable(void)
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_cst_extract(void)
> +static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_extract_lpi_cstates(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned int cpu;
>  
> -	if (no_acpi) {
> -		pr_debug("Not allowed to use ACPI _CST\n");
> -		return false;
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> +		struct acpi_processor *pr;
> +
> +		pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
> +		if (!pr)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info(pr->handle,
> +						    &acpi_state_table, true))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		acpi_lpi_available = true;
> +		return true;

On the first CPU for which acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() returns 0,
it sets acpi_lpi_available and immediately returns true.

Consequently, one CPU’s _LPI data populates the global acpi_state_table,
which initializes the single intel_idle_driver. Remaining CPUs are neither
queried nor compared which is fine IIUC on x86. But then the questions is
why does this needs to be in a loop as you? Can't it be just the boot CPU
for instance.

>  	}
>  
> +	pr_debug("No ACPI _LPI idle states\n");
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_extract_cst_cstates(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned int cpu;
> +
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -		struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
> +		struct acpi_processor *pr;
>  
> +		pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
>  		if (!pr)
>  			continue;
>  
> @@ -1826,14 +1846,36 @@ static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_cst_extract(void)
>  		if (!intel_idle_cst_usable())
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!acpi_processor_claim_cst_control())
> -			break;
> +		return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	pr_debug("ACPI _CST not found or not usable\n");
> +	return false;
> +}
>  
> +static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_extract_cstates(void)
> +{
> +	if (intel_idle_acpi_extract_lpi_cstates())
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (intel_idle_acpi_extract_cst_cstates())
>  		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __init intel_idle_acpi_probe(void)
> +{
> +	if (no_acpi) {
> +		pr_debug("Not allowed to use ACPI for C-states extraction\n");
> +		return false;
>  	}
> 

The intel_idle documentation and module parameter descriptions should be
updated to reflect _LPI support IMO.

Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_idle.rst should no longer imply that
intel_idle only looks for _CST or only uses _CST-derived state
names/construction rules.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-13 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-09 12:29 [PATCH v1 00/17] ACPI: processor: idle/intel_idle: Add ACPI _LPI support to intel_idle Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:30 ` [PATCH v1 01/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Expand _LPI package sanity checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:22   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16  9:05   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:31 ` [PATCH v1 02/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Ignore _LPI states with SYSTEMIO entry method Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:24   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16  9:08   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:32 ` [PATCH v1 03/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Unify debug in acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:27   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16  9:16   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:33 ` [PATCH v1 04/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:29   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16  9:46   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 10:36     ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-16 11:51   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 12:57     ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-09 12:34 ` [PATCH v1 05/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Split acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:17   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 11:55   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 12:58     ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-17  2:04       ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:35 ` [PATCH v1 06/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce lpi_state_debug() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:36 ` [PATCH v1 07/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:18   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:06   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 08/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework first-level _LPI states processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:20   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:44   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 13:03     ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 09/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Drop redundant _LPI presence checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:21   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:47   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:38 ` [PATCH v1 10/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange loop in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:21   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:49   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:39 ` [PATCH v1 11/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework flatten_lpi_states() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:23   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17  1:36   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:39 ` [PATCH v1 12/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce too_many_states() for _LPI Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:23   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17  1:38   ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:40 ` [PATCH v1 13/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:32   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17  1:46     ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:41 ` [PATCH v1 14/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Relocate acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:30   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17  1:56     ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:42 ` [PATCH v1 15/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Add switch for strict _LPI processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:33   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17  1:58     ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:43 ` [PATCH v1 16/17] intel_idle: Prepare for adding ACPI _LPI support Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:44 ` [PATCH v1 17/17] intel_idle: Add " Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 14:56   ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2026-07-14 13:25     ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260713-aquatic-okapi-of-wind-9e657c@sudeepholla \
    --to=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox