From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/cpuidle: Comment about timers requirements VS idle handler
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:38:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231114193840.4041-2-frederic@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231114193840.4041-1-frederic@kernel.org>
Add missing explanation concerning IRQs re-enablement constraints in
the cpuidle path against timers.
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
kernel/sched/idle.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
index 565f8374ddbb..31231925f1ec 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -258,6 +258,36 @@ static void do_idle(void)
while (!need_resched()) {
rmb();
+ /*
+ * Interrupts shouldn't be re-enabled from that point on until
+ * the CPU sleeping instruction is reached. Otherwise an interrupt
+ * may fire and queue a timer that would be ignored until the CPU
+ * wakes from the sleeping instruction. And testing need_resched()
+ * doesn't tell about pending needed timer reprogram.
+ *
+ * Several cases to consider:
+ *
+ * - SLEEP-UNTIL-PENDING-INTERRUPT based instructions such as
+ * "wfi" or "mwait" are fine because they can be entered with
+ * interrupt disabled.
+ *
+ * - sti;mwait() couple is fine because the interrupts are
+ * re-enabled only upon the execution of mwait, leaving no gap
+ * in-between.
+ *
+ * - ROLLBACK based idle handlers with the sleeping instruction
+ * called with interrupts enabled are NOT fine. In this scheme
+ * when the interrupt detects it has interrupted an idle handler,
+ * it rolls back to its beginning which performs the
+ * need_resched() check before re-executing the sleeping
+ * instruction. This can leak a pending needed timer reprogram.
+ * If such a scheme is really mandatory due to the lack of an
+ * appropriate CPU sleeping instruction, then a FAST-FORWARD
+ * must instead be applied: when the interrupt detects it has
+ * interrupted an idle handler, it must resume to the end of
+ * this idle handler so that the generic idle loop is iterated
+ * again to reprogram the tick.
+ */
local_irq_disable();
if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) {
--
2.42.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-14 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-14 19:38 [PATCH 0/2] sched/idle: Add a few cpuidle VS timers comments Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-14 19:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2023-11-15 9:04 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/cpuidle: Comment about timers requirements VS idle handler tip-bot2 for Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-14 19:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/timers: Explain why idle task schedules out on remote timer enqueue Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-15 9:04 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Frederic Weisbecker
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=20231114193840.4041-2-frederic@kernel.org \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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