Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] sched/idle: Disable idle call on least latency
 requirements
To:     Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, qais.yousef@arm.com,
        chris.hyser@oracle.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        rjw@rjwysocki.net
References: <20200507133723.18325-1-parth@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200507133723.18325-4-parth@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200508083601.GJ19464@codeaurora.org>
From:   Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <328de1bf-57d1-023d-29aa-11a540212015@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 16:49:04 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200508083601.GJ19464@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Pavan,

On 5/8/20 2:06 PM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:22PM +0530, Parth Shah wrote:
>> Restrict the call to deeper idle states when the given CPU has been set for
>> the least latency requirements
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/idle.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> index b743bf38f08f..85d72a6e2521 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ static void do_idle(void)
>>  		 * broadcast device expired for us, we don't want to go deep
>>  		 * idle as we know that the IPI is going to arrive right away.
>>  		 */
>> -		if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()) {
>> +		if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired() ||
>> +		    per_cpu(nr_lat_sensitive, cpu)) {
>>  			tick_nohz_idle_restart_tick();
>>  			cpu_idle_poll();
>>  		} else {
>> -- 
>> 2.17.2
>>
> 
> Since nr_lat_sensitive updates can happen remotely (when a latency sensitive
> task becomes non-latency sensitive task), we may need to add this condition
> in cpu_idle_poll() as well.
> 

Right. but if the CPU is running idle_task then it will again come back to
do_idle and read the refcount. Its a penalty in power-saving for 1
do_idle() loop but it is difficult to put up checks for any change in
latency_nice value.

Thanks,
Parth