Currently, we check cpuidle_ops.suspend every time when entering a
low-power idle state. But this check could be avoided in this hot path
by moving it into arm_cpuidle_read_ops() to reduce arm_cpuidle_suspend
overhead a bit.
Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <[email protected]>
---
Since v1:
- drop patch1, I.E "ARM: cpuidle: fix !cpuidle_ops[cpu].init case
during init", because there may be platforms which doesn't need the
init member at all.
- adopt Daniel's suggestion to move the cpuidle_ops.suspend check to
arm_cpuidle_read_ops().
arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
index 703926e..e63388e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
@@ -47,18 +47,13 @@ int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
* This function calls the underlying arch specific low level PM code as
* registered at the init time.
*
- * Returns -EOPNOTSUPP if no suspend callback is defined, the result of the
- * callback otherwise.
+ * Returns the result of the suspend callback.
*/
int arm_cpuidle_suspend(int index)
{
- int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
- if (cpuidle_ops[cpu].suspend)
- ret = cpuidle_ops[cpu].suspend(index);
-
- return ret;
+ return cpuidle_ops[cpu].suspend(index);
}
/**
@@ -92,7 +87,8 @@ static struct cpuidle_ops *__init arm_cpuidle_get_ops(const char *method)
* process.
*
* Return 0 on sucess, -ENOENT if no 'enable-method' is defined, -EOPNOTSUPP if
- * no cpuidle_ops is registered for the 'enable-method'.
+ * no cpuidle_ops is registered for the 'enable-method', or if no suspend
+ * callback is defined.
*/
static int __init arm_cpuidle_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu)
{
@@ -110,6 +106,12 @@ static int __init arm_cpuidle_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
+ if (!ops->suspend) {
+ pr_warn("cpuidle_ops '%s': no suspend callback\n",
+ enable_method);
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
+
cpuidle_ops[cpu] = *ops; /* structure copy */
pr_notice("cpuidle: enable-method property '%s'"
@@ -129,7 +131,8 @@ static int __init arm_cpuidle_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu)
* Returns:
* 0 on success,
* -ENODEV if it fails to find the cpu node in the device tree,
- * -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not find a registered cpuidle_ops for this cpu,
+ * -EOPNOTSUPP if it does not find a registered and valid cpuidle_ops for
+ * this cpu,
* -ENOENT if it fails to find an 'enable-method' property,
* -ENXIO if the HW reports a failure or a misconfiguration,
* -ENOMEM if the HW report an memory allocation failure
--
2.8.0.rc3
On 03/30/2016 09:47 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Currently, we check cpuidle_ops.suspend every time when entering a
> low-power idle state. But this check could be avoided in this hot path
> by moving it into arm_cpuidle_read_ops() to reduce arm_cpuidle_suspend
> overhead a bit.
This patch makes sense but the ARM64 part is missing.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Dear Daniel,
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:02:02 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/30/2016 09:47 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > Currently, we check cpuidle_ops.suspend every time when entering a
> > low-power idle state. But this check could be avoided in this hot path
> > by moving it into arm_cpuidle_read_ops() to reduce arm_cpuidle_suspend
> > overhead a bit.
>
> This patch makes sense but the ARM64 part is missing.
>
Here is the ARM64 part, you are also in the "To" list ;)
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/417713.html
Thanks,
Jisheng
On 03/30/2016 10:05 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:02:02 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 03/30/2016 09:47 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> Currently, we check cpuidle_ops.suspend every time when entering a
>>> low-power idle state. But this check could be avoided in this hot path
>>> by moving it into arm_cpuidle_read_ops() to reduce arm_cpuidle_suspend
>>> overhead a bit.
>>
>> This patch makes sense but the ARM64 part is missing.
>>
>
> Here is the ARM64 part, you are also in the "To" list ;)
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/417713.html
Ah, yes. That happens when we read the email sequentially :)
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog