From: Borsenkow Andrej <Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru>
To: Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de>
Cc: Thomas Hood <jdthood@mail.com>,
rmk@arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: APM driver patch summary
Date: 04 Jan 2002 22:56:18 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1010174181.2530.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20011222154452.ast@domdv.de>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20011222154452.ast@domdv.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]
Sorry for the delay, I was off before New Year and then could not test
it ...
On Сбт, 2001-12-22 at 17:44, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> Hi,
> I merged 2., 3. and 4. (attached) with some modifications.
>
> 1. There is now a module parameter apm-idle-threshold which allows to override
> the compiled in idle percentage threshold above which BIOS idle calls are
> done.
>
> 2. I modified Andrej's mechanism to detect a defunct BIOS (stating 'does stop
> CPU' when it actually doesn't) to take into account that there's other
> interrupts than the timer interrupt that could reactivate the cpu.
> As there's 16 hardware interrupts on x86 (apm is arch specific anyway) I do
> use a leaky bucket counter for a maximum of 16 idle rounds until jiffies is
> increased. When the counter reaches zero it stays at this value and the
> system idle routine is called. If BIOS idle is a noop then the counter
> reaches zero fast, thus effectively halting the cpu.
>
I do not think you need it. Either interrupt waked up somebody and set
need_resched and we exit loop or nobody is ready to run and we can sleep
again. Why complicate things any more than needed?
> Andrej, could you please test the patch if it works for your laptop?
>
It does not work and I am very surprised it works for somebody (well,
there are conditios when it will work). By default pm_idle is always
NULL so we *never* actually call kernel function that really stops CPU.
Main idle task is cpu_idle that does
if (pm_idle)
pm_idle()
or
default_idle
and CPU is halted in default_idle. So your patch just enters busy loop
calling BIOS APM Idle over and over again just like it was before.
Attached patch makes apm_cpu_idle do the same and call either old
pm_idle (a.k.a. sys_idle) or default_idle. I removed your interrupt
handling - it does not actually affect the problem but it still is not
needed IMHO. t1, t2 are changed from int into long because jiffies is
long - not sure if it is really needed.
cheers and sorry for delay
-andrej
[-- Attachment #2: apm.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1613 bytes --]
--- linux-2.4.16-9mdk/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c.combined Sun Dec 23 22:15:43 2001
+++ linux-2.4.16-9mdk/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Fri Jan 4 22:26:09 2002
@@ -761,6 +761,7 @@
static void (*sys_idle)(void);
static unsigned int last_jiffies = 0;
static unsigned int last_stime = 0;
+extern void default_idle(void);
/**
* apm_cpu_idle - cpu idling for APM capable Linux
@@ -774,8 +775,8 @@
{
static int use_apm_idle = 0;
int apm_is_idle = 0;
- unsigned int t1 = jiffies - last_jiffies;
- unsigned int t2;
+ unsigned long t1 = jiffies - last_jiffies;
+ unsigned long t2;
recalc: if(t1 > IDLE_CALC_LIMIT)
goto reset;
@@ -799,15 +800,8 @@
t1 = jiffies;
switch (apm_do_idle()) {
case 0: apm_is_idle = 1;
- if (t1 != jiffies) {
- if (t2) {
- t2 = IDLE_LEAKY_MAX;
- continue;
- }
- } else if (t2) {
- t2--;
+ if (t1 != jiffies)
continue;
- }
break;
case 1: apm_is_idle = 1;
break;
@@ -816,6 +810,8 @@
if (sys_idle)
sys_idle();
+ else
+ default_idle();
t1 = jiffies - last_jiffies;
if (t1 > HARD_IDLE_TIMEOUT)
--- linux-2.4.16-9mdk/arch/i386/kernel/process.c.org Thu Dec 13 13:12:46 2001
+++ linux-2.4.16-9mdk/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Fri Jan 4 22:24:47 2002
@@ -77,8 +77,10 @@
/*
* We use this if we don't have any better
* idle routine..
+ * It is also called from apm_cpu_idle if BIOS does not stop clock
+ * for us
*/
-static void default_idle(void)
+void default_idle(void)
{
if (current_cpu_data.hlt_works_ok && !hlt_counter) {
__cli();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-04 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-22 3:35 APM driver patch summary Thomas Hood
2001-12-22 10:42 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2001-12-22 14:44 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2001-12-22 16:13 ` Thomas Hood
2002-01-04 19:56 ` Borsenkow Andrej [this message]
2002-01-05 11:58 ` Andreas Steinmetz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-23 3:22 Thomas Hood
2001-12-23 12:12 ` Andreas Steinmetz
[not found] <1008737165.1155.0.camel@thanatos>
2001-12-19 13:49 ` Thomas Hood
2001-12-18 21:46 Thomas Hood
2001-12-18 21:24 Thomas Hood
2001-12-18 21:42 ` Russell King
[not found] ` <E16GYl6-0000nz-00@phalynx>
2001-12-19 10:23 ` Russell King
2001-12-18 1:22 Thomas Hood
2001-12-18 10:02 ` Russell King
2001-12-17 18:28 Thomas Hood
2001-12-17 22:04 ` Russell King
2001-12-17 22:22 ` Russell King
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=1010174181.2530.2.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=andrej.borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru \
--cc=ast@domdv.de \
--cc=jdthood@mail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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