From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched: idle: Consolidate the handling of two special cases
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 15:34:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abQgWDKIdSDDx_3s@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4741364.LvFx2qVVIh@rafael.j.wysocki>
Le Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 01:25:41PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> There are two special cases in the idle loop that are handled
> inconsistently even though they are analogous.
>
> The first one is when a cpuidle driver is absent and the default CPU
> idle time power management implemented by the architecture code is used.
> In that case, the scheduler tick is stopped every time before invoking
> default_idle_call().
>
> The second one is when a cpuidle driver is present, but there is only
> one idle state in its table. In that case, the scheduler tick is never
> stopped.
>
> Since each of these approaches leads to suboptimal choices in some
> cases, reconcile them with the help of one simple heuristic. Namely,
> stop the tick if the CPU has been woken up by it in the previous
> iteration of the idle loop, or let it tick otherwise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-13 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-13 12:25 [PATCH v1] sched: idle: Consolidate the handling of two special cases Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-03-13 12:53 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-13 13:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-03-13 14:03 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-13 15:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-03-13 15:45 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-14 11:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-03-13 14:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2026-03-13 15:22 ` Qais Yousef
2026-03-16 7:54 ` Aboorva Devarajan
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=abQgWDKIdSDDx_3s@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=aboorvad@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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