Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220415133356.179706384@linutronix.de> <20220415161206.419880163@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20220415161206.419880163@linutronix.de>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:34:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iNhn-TYiAWrY_m5+uOCOf-g3F-rzf1RjbEzmOcU4gVsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] x86/aperfmperf: Dont wake idle CPUs in arch_freq_get_on_cpu()
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 9:19 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> aperfmperf_get_khz() already excludes idle CPUs from APERF/MPERF sampling
> and that's a reasonable decision. There is no point in sending up to two
> IPIs to an idle CPU just because someone reads a sysfs file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,9 @@ unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cp
>         if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_MISC))
>                 return 0;
>
> +       if (rcu_is_idle_cpu(cpu))
> +               return 0;
> +
>         if (aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true))
>                 return per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
>
>