LinuxPPC-Dev Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idle/tick-broadcast: Exit cpu idle poll loop when cleared from tick_broadcast_force_mask
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:56:14 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501211045480.5526@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54BE3B0E.2050502@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 04:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >> An idle cpu enters cpu_idle_poll() if it is set in the tick_broadcast_force_mask.
> >> This is so that it does not incur the overhead of entering idle states when it is expected
> >> to be woken up anytime then through a broadcast IPI. The condition that forces an exit out
> >> of the idle polling is the check on setting of the TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag for the idle thread.
> >>
> >> When the broadcast IPI does arrive, it is not guarenteed that the handler sets the
> >> TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag. Hence although the cpu is cleared in the tick_broadcast_force_mask,
> >> it continues to loop in cpu_idle_poll unnecessarily wasting power. Hence exit the idle
> >> poll loop if the tick_broadcast_force_mask gets cleared and enter idle states.
> >>
> >> Of course if the cpu has entered cpu_idle_poll() on being asked to poll explicitly,
> >> it continues to poll till it is asked to reschedule.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>  kernel/sched/idle.c |    3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> >> index c47fce7..aaf1c1d 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> >> @@ -47,7 +47,8 @@ static inline int cpu_idle_poll(void)
> >>  	rcu_idle_enter();
> >>  	trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(0, smp_processor_id());
> >>  	local_irq_enable();
> >> -	while (!tif_need_resched())
> >> +	while (!tif_need_resched() &&
> >> +		(cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()))
> > 
> > You explain the tick_check_broadcast_expired() bit, but what about the
> > cpu_idle_force_poll part?
> 
> The last few lines which say "Of course if the cpu has entered
> cpu_idle_poll() on being asked to poll explicitly, it continues to poll
> till it is asked to reschedule" explains the cpu_idle_force_poll part.

Well, I read it more than once and did not figure it out.

The paragraph describes some behaviour. Now I know it's the behaviour
before the patch. So maybe something like this:

  cpu_idle_poll() is entered when cpu_idle_force_poll is set or
  tick_check_broadcast_expired() returns true. The exit condition from
  cpu_idle_poll() is tif_need_resched().

  But this does not take into account that cpu_idle_force_poll and
  tick_check_broadcast_expired() can change without setting the
  resched flag. So a cpu can be caught in cpu_idle_poll() needlessly
  and thereby wasting power.

  Add an explicit check for cpu_idle_force_poll and
  tick_check_broadcast_expired() to the exit condition of
  cpu_idle_poll() to avoid this.

This explains the technical issue without confusing people with IPIs
and other completely irrelevant information. Hmm?

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-21  9:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-19  5:27 [PATCH] idle/tick-broadcast: Exit cpu idle poll loop when cleared from tick_broadcast_force_mask Preeti U Murthy
2015-01-20 11:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-01-20 11:25   ` Preeti U Murthy
2015-01-21  9:56     ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2015-01-21 10:38       ` Preeti U Murthy

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=alpine.DEB.2.11.1501211045480.5526@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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