Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] timers: keep sleep length updated as needed

Li, Aubrey
2017-10-17T06:10:14Z

On 2017/10/17 7:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:46:41 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:31 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> sleep length indicates how long we'll be idle. Currently, it's updated
>>>> only when tick nohz enters. These patch series make a new requirement
>>>> with tick, so we should keep sleep length updated as needed
>>>
>>> So what exactly would be the problem with leaving things as they are?
>>
>> Previously ts->sleep_length is only updated when tick is stopped.
>>
>> As follows, in
>>
>> __tick_nohz_idle_enter()
>> {
>> if (can_stop_idle_tick() /* return true */) {
>> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
>> |
>> |-----> update sleep_length
>> }
>> }
>
> Which is logical, because the tick will get in the way if we don't stop it,
> won't it?
>
The scenario here is, tick(4ms) is too long for a short idle(e.g. 4us).
And there could be hundreds of short idle within one tick interval.

>>
>> Now ts->sleep_length is required out of tick_nohz_idle_enter(), so we want
>> to update sleep_length every time we read it
>>
>> If we leave it unchanged, the prediction could read a sleep_length long time
>> ago if the system keep ticking.
>
> Well, but does it make sense to estimate the sleep length without stopping
> the tick?

For example, for the first short idle, we just turned tick off last time, so
we may get the sleep length = 3900us. Then we keep tick on, and the 100th short
idle comes, then the original sleep length is still 3900us(not updated), but
actually it should be e.g. 100us.

>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 3 +++
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>>>> index d663fab..94fb9b8 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>>>> @@ -1008,8 +1008,11 @@ void tick_nohz_irq_exit(void)
>>>> */
>>>> ktime_t tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct clock_event_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(tick_cpu_device.evtdev);
>>>> struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
>>>>
>>>> + ts->sleep_length = ktime_sub(dev->next_event, ktime_get());
>>>> +
>>>> return ts->sleep_length;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I probably wouldn't do it this way ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> May I know the detailed thoughts?
>
> That depends on the answer above. :-)

Does the above explanation address the concern?

Thanks,
-Aubrey