Message-ID: <52F84B40.8090403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:15:04 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
CC: Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PPC: powernv: remove redundant cpuidle_idle_call()
References: <1391696188-14540-1-git-send-email-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <CAKnoXLxCAqKaniGOwegNcOarS4FpoNKDY5PxOhe6j4wdtUAkLQ@mail.gmail.com> <52F3BCFE.3010703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1402070105170.1906@knanqh.ubzr> <52F46EB3.5080403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1402071022490.1906@knanqh.ubzr> <52F4C666.4050308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140207124140.GB9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140207124140.GB9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi Peter,

On 02/07/2014 06:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:11:26PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> But observe the idle state "snooze" on powerpc. The power that this idle
>> state saves is through the lowering of the thread priority of the CPU.
>> After it lowers the thread priority, it is done. It cannot
>> "wait_for_interrupts". It will exit my_idle(). It is now upto the
>> generic idle loop to increase the thread priority if the need_resched
>> flag is set. Only an interrupt routine can increase the thread priority.
>> Else we will need to do it explicitly. And in such states which have a
>> polling nature, the cpu will not receive a reschedule IPI.
>>
>> That is why in the snooze_loop() we poll on need_resched. If it is set
>> we up the priority of the thread using HMT_MEDIUM() and then exit the
>> my_idle() loop. In case of interrupts, the priority gets automatically
>> increased.
> 
> You can poll without setting TS_POLLING/TIF_POLLING_NRFLAGS just fine
> and get the IPI if that is what you want.
> 
> Depending on how horribly unprovisioned the thread gets at the lowest
> priority, that might actually be faster than polling and raising the
> prio whenever it does get ran.

So I am assuming you mean something like the below:

my_idle()
{
   local_irq_enable();
   /* Remove the setting of the polling flag */
   HMT_low();
   return index;
}

And then exit into the generic idle loop. But the issue I see here is
that the TS_POLLING/TIF_POLLING_NRFLAGS gets set immediately. So, if on
testing need_resched() immediately after this returns that the
TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag is set, the thread will exit at low priority right?
 We could raise the priority of the thread in arch_cpu_idle_exit() soon
after setting the polling flag but that would mean for cases where the
TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag is not set we unnecessarily raise the priority of
the thread.

Thanks

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/