[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405124757.GQ4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:47:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/10] cpuidle: menu: Avoid selecting shallow states
with stopped tick
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:50:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> + /*
> + * If the tick is already stopped, the cost of possible short
> + * idle duration misprediction is much higher, because the CPU
> + * may be stuck in a shallow idle state for a long time as a
> + * result of it. In that case say we might mispredict and try
> + * to force the CPU into a state for which we would have stopped
> + * the tick, unless the tick timer is going to expire really
> + * soon anyway.
Wait what; the tick was stopped, therefore it _cannot_ expire soon.
*confused*
Did you mean s/tick/a/ ?
> + */
> + if (data->predicted_us < TICK_USEC)
> + data->predicted_us = min_t(unsigned int, TICK_USEC,
> + ktime_to_us(delta_next));
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Use the performance multiplier and the user-configurable
> + * latency_req to determine the maximum exit latency.
> + */
> + interactivity_req = data->predicted_us / performance_multiplier(nr_iowaiters, cpu_load);
> + if (latency_req > interactivity_req)
> + latency_req = interactivity_req;
> + }
>
> expected_interval = data->predicted_us;
> /*
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists