[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180822120200.GA8949@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:02:00 +0800
From: leo.yan@...aro.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: Retain tick when shallow state is selected
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:44:10AM +0200, Rafael J . Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> The case addressed by commit 5ef499cd571c (cpuidle: menu: Handle
> stopped tick more aggressively) in the stopped tick case is present
> when the tick has not been stopped yet too. Namely, if only two CPU
> idle states, shallow state A with target residency significantly
> below the tick boundary and deep state B with target residency
> significantly above it, are available and the predicted idle
> duration is above the tick boundary, but below the target residency
> of state B, state A will be selected and the CPU may spend indefinite
> amount of time in it, which is not quite energy-efficient.
>
> However, if the tick has not been stopped yet and the governor is
> about to select a shallow idle state for the CPU even though the idle
> duration predicted by it is above the tick boundary, it should be
> fine to wake up the CPU early, so the tick can be retained then and
> the governor will have a chance to select a deeper state when it runs
> next time.
>
> [Note that when this really happens, it will make the idle duration
> predictor believe that the CPU might be idle longer than predicted,
> which will make it more likely to predict longer idle durations going
> forward, but that will also cause deeper idle states to be selected
> going forward, on average, which is what's needed here.]
>
> Fixes: 87c9fe6ee495 (cpuidle: menu: Avoid selecting shallow states with stopped tick)
> Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>
> Commit 5ef499cd571c (cpuidle: menu: Handle stopped tick more aggressively) is
> in linux-next only at this point.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> @@ -379,9 +379,20 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr
> if (idx == -1)
> idx = i; /* first enabled state */
> if (s->target_residency > data->predicted_us) {
> - if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> + if (data->predicted_us < TICK_USEC)
With this change, for tick has been stopped, it might introduce
regression to select a shallow state and it's conflict with the effect
of patch "cpuidle: menu: Handle stopped tick more aggressively".
> break;
>
> + if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> + /*
> + * If the state selected so far is shallow,
> + * waking up early won't hurt, so retain the
> + * tick in that case and let the governor run
> + * again in the next iteration of the loop.
> + */
> + expected_interval = drv->states[idx].target_residency;
> + break;
> + }
> +
This is reliable, how we can rely on a shallow idle state target
residency to decide if need to stop a tick or not?
> /*
> * If the state selected so far is shallow and this
> * state's target residency matches the time till the
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists