Message-ID: <545C4942.5020809@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Nov 2014 09:53:30 +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 11/06/2014 05:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 05:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I am not sure.
> 
> Could you describe what is the difference between the arch_cpu_idle
> function in arch/arm/powerpc/kernel/idle.c and the 0th power PC idle
> state ?

arch_cpu_idle() is the arch specific idle routine. It goes into deeper
idle state. I am guessing you meant to ask the difference between
power pc 0th idle state and the polling logic in cpu_idle_poll().

The 0th idle state is also a polling loop. Additionally it sets a couple
of registers to indicate idleness.

> 
> Is it kind of duplicate ?
> 
> And for polling, do you really want to use while (...); cpu_relax(); as
> it is x86 specific ? instead of the powerpc's arch_idle ?
> 
> Today, if latency_req == 0, it returns the 0th idle state, so polling.
> 
> If we jump to the arch_cpu_idle_poll, the result will be the same for
> all architecture.


So you propose creating a weak arch_cpu_idle_poll()? Ok if it is going
to make the cleanup easier, go ahead. I can add arch_cpu_idle_poll() in
the core code 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?
> 
> It sounds a bit hackish. I prefer to sort out the current situation.
> 
> And by the way, what is the reasoning behind having a target_residency /
> exit_latency equal to zero for an idle state ?

Its a polling idle state, hence the exit_latency is 0.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

--
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