[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3404606.44csPzL39Z@rafael.j.wysocki>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 20:44:53 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject:
[PATCH v1 2/5] cpuidle: governors: teo: Avoid fake intercepts produced by
tick
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Tick wakeups can lead to fake intercepts that may skew idle state
selection towards shallow states, so it is better to avoid counting
them as intercepts.
For this purpose, add a check causing teo_update() to only count
tick wakeups as intercepts if intercepts within the tick period
range are at least twice as frequent as any other events.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
---
drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
@@ -239,6 +239,17 @@ static void teo_update(struct cpuidle_dr
cpu_data->state_bins[drv->state_count-1].hits += PULSE;
return;
}
+ /*
+ * If intercepts within the tick period range are not frequent
+ * enough, count this wakeup as a hit, since it is likely that
+ * the tick has woken up the CPU because an expected intercept
+ * was not there. Otherwise, one of the intercepts may have
+ * been incidentally preceded by the tick wakeup.
+ */
+ if (3 * cpu_data->tick_intercepts < 2 * total) {
+ cpu_data->state_bins[idx_timer].hits += PULSE;
+ return;
+ }
}
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists