From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754895AbeCGXSe (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:18:34 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:49254 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754706AbeCGXSc (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:18:32 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C331E206B2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=frederic@kernel.org Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:18:29 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linux PM , Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Paul McKenney , Thomas Ilsche , Doug Smythies , Rik van Riel , Aubrey Li , Mike Galbraith , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 1/6] time: tick-sched: Reorganize idle tick management code Message-ID: <20180307231827.GA9367@lerouge> References: <2067762.1uWBf5RSRc@aspire.rjw.lan> <4136227.b9g9WnMbNJ@aspire.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4136227.b9g9WnMbNJ@aspire.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Index: linux-pm/kernel/time/tick-sched.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/time/tick-sched.c > +++ linux-pm/kernel/time/tick-sched.c > + > +/** > + * tick_nohz_idle_prepare - prepare for entering idle on the current CPU. > + * > + * Called when we start the idle loop. > + */ > +void tick_nohz_idle_prepare(void) > +{ > + struct tick_sched *ts; > + > + __tick_nohz_idle_prepare(); > + > + local_irq_disable(); > + > + ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched); > + ts->inidle = 1; > + > + local_irq_enable(); > +} Why not calling tick_nohz_start_idle() from there? This is going to simplify the rest, you won't need to call tick_nohz_idle_go_idle() from places that don't want to stop the tick and you can then remove the stop_tick argument. > + > +/** > + * tick_nohz_idle_go_idle - start idle period on the current CPU. > + * @stop_tick: Whether or not to stop the idle tick. > + * > + * When @stop_tick is set and the next event is more than a tick into the > + * future, stop the idle tick. > + */ > +void tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(bool stop_tick) > +{ > + __tick_nohz_idle_enter(this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched), stop_tick); > +} > + > +void tick_nohz_idle_enter(void) > +{ > + struct tick_sched *ts; > + > + __tick_nohz_idle_prepare(); > > local_irq_disable(); > > ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched); > ts->inidle = 1; > - __tick_nohz_idle_enter(ts); > + __tick_nohz_idle_enter(ts, true); > > local_irq_enable(); > } Ah I see you're keeping tick_nohz_idle_enter() around because of the callsite in xen. It looks like a hack (from the xen part), I'll need to have a look at it, just a note for myself... Thanks.