Re: [RFC 3/4] sched/idle: Disable idle call on least latency requirements

Pavan Kondeti
2020-05-09T02:18:26Z

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:49:04PM +0530, Parth Shah wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
>
> On 5/8/20 2:06 PM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:22PM +0530, Parth Shah wrote:
> >> Restrict the call to deeper idle states when the given CPU has been set for
> >> the least latency requirements
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Parth Shah <parth@linux.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 b743bf38f08f..85d72a6e2521 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> >> @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ static void do_idle(void)
> >> * broadcast device expired for us, we don't want to go deep
> >> * idle as we know that the IPI is going to arrive right away.
> >> */
> >> - if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()) {
> >> + if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired() ||
> >> + per_cpu(nr_lat_sensitive, cpu)) {
> >> tick_nohz_idle_restart_tick();
> >> cpu_idle_poll();
> >> } else {
> >> --
> >> 2.17.2
> >>
> >
> > Since nr_lat_sensitive updates can happen remotely (when a latency sensitive
> > task becomes non-latency sensitive task), we may need to add this condition
> > in cpu_idle_poll() as well.
> >
>
> Right. but if the CPU is running idle_task then it will again come back to
> do_idle and read the refcount. Its a penalty in power-saving for 1
> do_idle() loop but it is difficult to put up checks for any change in
> latency_nice value.
>

Yes, when the CPU exits to serve an interrupt, we note the change in latency
task count and enter C-state.

I asked this because all checks that are present here are also present in
cpu_idle_poll().

Thanks,
Pavan
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.