Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] cpuidle: Pre-store next timer/tick before selecting an idle state

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:16 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 23:08, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:54 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > A common piece of data used by cpuidle governors, is the information about
> > > when the next timer/tick is going to fire. Rather than having each governor
> > > calling tick_nohz_get_next_timer|hrtimer() separately, let's consolidate
> > > the code by calling these functions before invoking the ->select() callback
> > > of the governor - and store the output data in the struct cpuidle_device.
> >
> > That misses the point IMO.
> >
> > You don't need to store two values in struct cpuidle_device, but just
> > one, and not before running ->select(), but before invoking the
> > driver's ->enter() callback.
>
> Okay! Thanks for letting me know!
>
> >
> > At that point, the decision on whether or not to stop the scheduler
> > tick has been made already and it should be sufficient to store the
> > return value of tick_nohz_get_next_hrtimer() introduced by patch
> > [3/8], because that value represents the next timer regardless of what
> > has been decided with respect to the tick.
>
> Just to make sure I get this correctly, because it seems like I have
> missed a few points here....
>
> If we decided to keep the tick running, then
> tick_nohz_get_next_hrtimer() gives the next tick or the next hrtimer,
> whatever that comes first. There are no other timer that can expire
> earlier than this, right!?
>
> If we decided to stop the tick, then tick_nohz_get_next_hrtimer() will
> give us the next hrtimer. Again, then there are no other timer that
> can't expire earlier than this, right!?

Right in both cases.

IOW, that is the event that will wake up the CPU unless any other
(non-timer) interrupts (or equivalent events) occur in the meantime.

> >
> > And you won't need the tick_nohz_get_next_timer() any more then.
>
> Alright, this kind of brings this hole thing back closer to v10 - and
> then we should stick to use tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() as is for the
> cpuidle governors. That is what you are saying?

For the menu and teo governors - yes.  IMO
tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() is as good as it gets in there.

Cheers,
Rafael



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux