[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02693dc9-e6f7-4683-8bba-4de5e8854689@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 12:05:28 +0000
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] cpuidle: governors: teo: Avoid selecting states
with zero-size bins
On 1/26/26 11:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:18 AM Christian Loehle
> <christian.loehle@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/26 20:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 2:10 PM Christian Loehle
>>> <christian.loehle@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/26 19:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the last two enabled idle states have the same target residency which
>>>>> is at least equal to TICK_NSET, teo may select the next-to-last one even
>>>>
>>>> s/TICK_NSET/TICK_NSEC
>>>
>>> Yup, thanks!
>>>
>>>>> though the size of that state's bin is 0, which is confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prevent that from happening by adding a target residency check to the
>>>>> relevant code path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
>>>>> @@ -388,6 +388,15 @@ static int teo_select(struct cpuidle_dri
>>>>> while (min_idx < idx &&
>>>>> drv->states[min_idx].target_residency_ns < TICK_NSEC)
>>>>> min_idx++;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Avoid selecting a state with a lower index, but with
>>>>> + * the same target residency as the current candidate
>>>>> + * one.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (drv->states[min_idx].target_residency_ns ==
>>>>> + drv->states[idx].target_residency_ns)
>>>>
>>>> We need to check that min_idx isn't disabled though, otherwise we now skip a
>>>> potential (enabled) idx==1 if min_idx==2 and min_idx is disabled.
>>>
>>> Not really because idx is the current candidate state and it is
>>> enabled. We'll use idx if this check is true, not min_idx.
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
>> I meant initially:
>>
>> for (i = intercept_max_idx; i >= min_idx; i--) {
>> intercept_sum += cpu_data->state_bins[i].intercepts;
>>
>> if (dev->states_usage[i].disable)
>> continue;
>>
>> idx = i;
>> if (2 * intercept_sum > idx_intercept_sum)
>> break;
>> }
>> might skip an idx==3 if it enters with min_idx==2 (sorry, messed up the +-1 in the initial mail)
>> even though idx==3 might have the same residency as idx==2.
>> So if idx==2 is disabled we could've selected idx==3, but now won't and will go for idx==1 or
>> whatever is the next shallower enabled state.
>
> But that's after patch [5/5] that has problems (I have a new version
> of it ready to send, will do that later today).
>
> Look at the original 6.19-rc code and patch [1/1] by itself and you'll
> see what I mean.
>
Duh you're right, sorry about the noise :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists