Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:15:30 +0530
From:   Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc:     "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Stewart Smith <stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Akshay Adiga <akshay.adiga@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle:powernv: Make the snooze timeout dynamic.
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1527768909-32637-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87fu22bxlf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87fu22bxlf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Message-Id: <20180605084529.GA5656@in.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Michael,

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 09:27:40PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The commit 78eaa10f027c ("cpuidle: powernv/pseries: Auto-promotion of
> > snooze to deeper idle state") introduced a timeout for the snooze idle
> > state so that it could be eventually be promoted to a deeper idle
> > state. The snooze timeout value is static and set to the target
> > residency of the next idle state, which would train the cpuidle
> > governor to pick the next idle state eventually.
> >
> > The unfortunate side-effect of this is that if the next idle state(s)
> > is disabled, the CPU will forever remain in snooze, despite the fact
> > that the system is completely idle, and other deeper idle states are
> > available.
> 
> That sounds like a bug, I'll add?
>

Yes, this is a bug-fix for a customer scenario which we encountered
recently.

> Fixes: 78eaa10f027c ("cpuidle: powernv/pseries: Auto-promotion of snooze to deeper idle state")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.2+

This patch applies cleanly from v4.13 onwards. Prior to that there are
some (minor) conflicts.

Should I spin a version separately for the prior stable versions ?

> 
> cheers
>