[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF1AA8A.8060304@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:44:42 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Trinabh Gupta <g.trinabh@...il.com>,
Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support
On 12/21/2011 10:40 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>> this smells fundamentally racey to me; you can get an interrupt one
>> cycle after you think you're done, but before the last guy enters WFI...
>>
>> how do you solve that issue ?
>
> All the cpus have interrupts off when they increment the counter, so
> they cannot receive an interrupt. If an interrupt is pending on one
> of those cpus, it will be handled later when WFI aborts due to the
> pending interrupt.
... but this leads to cases where you're aborting before other cpus are
entering..... so your "last guy in" doesn't really work, since while cpu
0 thinks it's the last guy, cpu 1 is already on the way out/out
already... (heck it might already be going back to sleep if your idle
code can run fast, like in the size of a cache miss)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists