On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:19:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> When doing an nmi backtrace of many cores, most of which are idle,
> the output is a little overwhelming and very uninformative. Suppress
> messages for cpus that are idling when they are interrupted and just
> emit one line, "NMI backtrace for N skipped: idling at pc 0xNNN".
>
> We do this by grouping all the cpuidle code together into a new
> .cpuidle.text section, and then checking the address of the
> interrupted PC to see if it lies within that section.
>
> This commit suitably tags x86, arm64, and tile idle routines,
> and only adds in the minimal framework for other architectures.
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
For some reason I found a few CPUs using poll_idle().
Rafael, when and why would that ever get selected as a useful idle
state? When the predicted idle time is so short even C1 isn't worth it?
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#include <linux/cpuidle.h>
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
#include <linux/tick.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include "cpuidle.h"
@@ -178,7 +179,7 @@ static void __cpuidle_driver_init(struct
}
#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CPU_RELAX
-static int poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+__cpuidle static int poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
{
local_irq_enable();
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
