Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751753AbdGSFoL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:44:11 -0400
Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:2440 "EHLO mga07.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751228AbdGSFoK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:44:10 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,379,1496127600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="126778055"
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
        len.brown@intel.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        arjan@linux.intel.com, yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
References: <31170ac6-9db1-f0b8-4841-f1661c8ed6e1@linux.intel.com>
 <20170714153818.pjauqxebxyhs6ljp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170714155356.GH3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20170714160648.tg2u6eo2id6gmnjz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170714162619.GJ3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20170717192309.ubn5muvc3u7htuaw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <34371ef8-b8bc-d2bf-93de-3fccd6beb032@linux.intel.com>
 <20170718044521.GO3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707180841290.1945@nanos>
 <f0ca590c-ea67-c17a-b0b9-13940150f1ae@linux.intel.com>
 <20170718152014.GB3981@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <df9cd535-3739-ebd2-f27d-e73c1806f0a1@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:44:06 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170718152014.GB3981@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 934
Lines: 22

On 2017/7/18 23:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

>> 2) for rcu idle enter/exit, I measured the details which Paul provided, and
>> the result matches with what I have measured before, nothing notable found.
>> But it still makes more sense if we can make rcu idle enter/exit hooked with
>> tick off. (it's possible other workloads behave differently)
> 
> Again, assuming that RCU is informed of CPUs in the kernel, regardless
> of whether or not the tick is on that that point in time.
> 
Yeah, I see, no problem for a normal idle.

But for a short idle, we want to return to the task ASAP. Even though RCU cost
is not notable, it would still be better for me if we can save some cycles in
idle entry and idle exit.

Do we have any problem if we skip RCU idle enter/exit under a fast idle scenario?
My understanding is, if tick is not stopped, then we don't need inform RCU in
idle path, it can be informed in irq exit.

Thanks,
-Aubrey