[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1520292421.6857.22.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:27:01 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 6/7] sched: idle: Predict idle duration before
stopping the tick
On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 23:28 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
> @@ -188,13 +188,14 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
> } else {
> unsigned int duration_us;
>
> - tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(true);
> - rcu_idle_enter();
> -
> /*
> * Ask the cpuidle framework to choose a convenient
> idle state.
> */
> next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev, &duration_us);
> +
> + tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(duration_us > USEC_PER_SEC /
> HZ);
> + rcu_idle_enter();
> +
> entered_state = call_cpuidle(drv, dev, next_state);
When the expected idle period is short enough
that the timer is not stopped, does it make
sense to still call rcu_idle_enter?
Should rcu_idle_enter also be conditional on
the expected idle period?
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists