Message-ID: <545AF424.2070302@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:38:04 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before
 idle

On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>>> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>> When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in
>>>>> all the
>>>>> cases".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
>>>>>
>>>>> As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the
>>>>> governor will
>>>>> return zero, so corresponding, for x86, to the poll function, but for
>>>>> the
>>>>> others arch the default idle function. For example, on ARM this is
>>>>> wait-for-
>>>>> interrupt with a latency of '1', so violating the constraint.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true actually. On PowerPC the idle state 0 has an
>>>> exit_latency of 0.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to fix that, do the latency requirement check *before*
>>>>> calling the
>>>>> cpuidle framework in order to jump to the poll function without
>>>>> entering
>>>>> cpuidle. That has several benefits:
>>>>
>>>> Doing so actually hurts on PowerPC. Because the idle loop defined for
>>>> idle state 0 is different from what cpu_relax() does in
>>>> cpu_idle_loop().
>>>> The spinning is more power efficient in the former case. Moreover we
>>>> also set
>>>> certain register values which indicate an idle cpu. The ppc_runlatch
>>>> bits
>>>> do precisely this. These register values are being read by some user
>>>> space
>>>> tools.  So we will end up breaking them with this patch
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is very well keep the latency requirement check in
>>>> kernel/sched/idle.c
>>>> like your doing in this patch. But before jumping to cpu_idle_loop
>>>> verify if the
>>>> idle state 0 has an exit_latency > 0 in addition to your check on the
>>>> latency_req == 0.
>>>> If not, you can fall through to the regular path of calling into the
>>>> cpuidle driver.
>>>> The scheduler can query the cpuidle_driver structure anyway.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing the patch and spotting this.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't make sense to create:
>>>
>>> void __weak_cpu_idle_poll(void) ?
>>>
>>> and override it with your specific poll function ?
>>>
>>
>> No this would become ugly as far as I can see. A weak function has to be
>> defined under arch/* code. We will either need to duplicate the idle
>> loop that we already have in the drivers or point the weak function to
>> the first idle state defined by our driver. Both of which is not
>> desirable (calling into the driver from arch code is ugly). Another
>> reason why I don't like the idea of a weak function is that if you have
>> missed looking at a specific driver and they have an idle loop with
>> features similar to on powerpc, you will have to spot it yourself and
>> include the arch specific cpu_idle_poll() for them.
> 
> Yes, I agree this is a fair point. But actually I don't see the interest
> of having the poll loop in the cpuidle driver. These cleanups are

We can't do that simply because the idle poll loop has arch specific
bits on powerpc.

> preparing the removal of the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START macro which
> leads to a lot of mess in the cpuidle code.

How is the suggestion to check the exit_latency of idle state 0 when
latency_req  == 0 going to hinder this removal?

> 
> With the removal of this macro, we should be able to move the select
> loop from the menu governor and use it everywhere else. Furthermore,
> this state which is flagged with TIME_VALID, isn't because the local
> interrupt are enabled so we are measuring the interrupt time processing.
> Beside that the idle loop for x86 is mostly not used.
> 
> So the idea would be to extract those idle loop from the drivers and use
> them directly when:
>  1. the idle selection fails (use the poll loop under certain
> circumstances we have to redefine)

This behavior will not change as per my suggestion.

>  2. when the latency req is zero

Its only here that I suggested you also verify state 0's exit_latency.
For the reason that the arch may have a more optimized idle poll loop,
which we cannot override with the generic cpuidle poll loop.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> That will result in a cleaner code in cpuidle and in the governor.
> 
> Do you agree with that ?
> 
>> But by having a check on the exit_latency, you are claiming that since
>> the driver's 0th idle state is no better than the generic idle loop in
>> cases of 0 latency req, we are better off calling the latter, which
>> looks reasonable. That way you don't have to bother about worsening the
>> idle loop behavior on any other driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
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