[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iNhn-TYiAWrY_m5+uOCOf-g3F-rzf1RjbEzmOcU4gVsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:34:56 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] x86/aperfmperf: Dont wake idle CPUs in arch_freq_get_on_cpu()
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 9:19 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> aperfmperf_get_khz() already excludes idle CPUs from APERF/MPERF sampling
> and that's a reasonable decision. There is no point in sending up to two
> IPIs to an idle CPU just because someone reads a sysfs file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,9 @@ unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cp
> if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_MISC))
> return 0;
>
> + if (rcu_is_idle_cpu(cpu))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true))
> return per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists