From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
patches@linaro.org, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:59:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <544FE787.8090108@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM4v1pOg1GFW82WD8b6Vas5xhYQrQtdP1STGxyzYtrBNSa+-Pw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>> When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
>> cases".
>>
>> That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
>>
>> As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the governor will
>> return zero, so corresponding, for x86, to the poll function, but for the
>> others arch the default idle function. For example, on ARM this is wait-for-
>> interrupt with a latency of '1', so violating the constraint.
>
> This is not true actually. On PowerPC the idle state 0 has an exit_latency of 0.
>
>>
>> In order to fix that, do the latency requirement check *before* calling the
>> cpuidle framework in order to jump to the poll function without entering
>> cpuidle. That has several benefits:
>
> Doing so actually hurts on PowerPC. Because the idle loop defined for
> idle state 0 is different from what cpu_relax() does in cpu_idle_loop().
> The spinning is more power efficient in the former case. Moreover we also set
> certain register values which indicate an idle cpu. The ppc_runlatch bits
> do precisely this. These register values are being read by some user space
> tools. So we will end up breaking them with this patch
>
> My suggestion is very well keep the latency requirement check in
> kernel/sched/idle.c
> like your doing in this patch. But before jumping to cpu_idle_loop verify if the
> idle state 0 has an exit_latency > 0 in addition to your check on the
> latency_req == 0.
> If not, you can fall through to the regular path of calling into the
> cpuidle driver.
> The scheduler can query the cpuidle_driver structure anyway.
>
> What do you think?
Thanks for reviewing the patch and spotting this.
Wouldn't make sense to create:
void __weak_cpu_idle_poll(void) ?
and override it with your specific poll function ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-28 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-23 9:01 [PATCH V2 1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-23 9:01 ` [PATCH V2 2/5] sched: idle: Get the next timer event and pass it the cpuidle framework Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-23 9:01 ` [PATCH V2 3/5] cpuidle: idle: menu: Don't reflect when a state selection failed Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-28 2:01 ` Len Brown
2014-10-28 19:15 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-28 7:01 ` Preeti Murthy
2014-10-28 18:28 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-29 1:44 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-10-29 16:54 ` Kevin Hilman
2014-10-29 21:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-10-23 9:01 ` [PATCH V2 4/5] cpuidle: menu: Fix the get_typical_interval Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-23 16:43 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-10-28 2:48 ` Len Brown
2014-10-29 18:15 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-23 9:01 ` [PATCH V2 5/5] cpuidle: menu: Move the update function before its declaration Daniel Lezcano
2014-10-23 16:47 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-10-28 2:53 ` Len Brown
2014-10-28 3:51 ` [PATCH V2 1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle Preeti Murthy
2014-10-28 18:59 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2014-10-29 2:01 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-05 14:28 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-06 4:08 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-06 12:27 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 4:23 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-06 13:42 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 4:29 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-07 9:35 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-05 21:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-11-05 21:41 ` Daniel Lezcano
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=544FE787.8090108@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).