Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] cpuidle/ppc: CPU goes tickless if there are noarch-specific constraints
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 - 09:31:01 EST
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:33:02PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> In the current design of timer offload framework, the broadcast cpu should
> *not* go into tickless idle so as to avoid missed wakeups on CPUs in deep idle states.
> Since we prevent the CPUs entering deep idle states from programming the lapic of the
> broadcast cpu for their respective next local events for reasons mentioned in
> PATCH[3/5], the broadcast CPU checks if there are any CPUs to be woken up during
> each of its timer interrupt programmed to its local events.
> With tickless idle, the broadcast CPU might not get a timer interrupt till after
> many ticks which can result in missed wakeups on CPUs in deep idle states. By
> disabling tickless idle, worst case, the tick_sched hrtimer will trigger a
> timer interrupt every period to check for broadcast.
> However the current setup of tickless idle does not let us make the choice
> of tickless on individual cpus. NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE which disables tickless idle,
> is a system wide setting. Hence resort to an arch specific call to check if a cpu
> can go into tickless idle.
I'm not exactly sure why you can't enter the broadcast CPU in dynticks idle mode.
I read in the previous patch that's because in dynticks idle mode the broadcast
CPU deactivates its lapic so it doesn't receive the IPI. But may be I misunderstood.
Anyway that's not good for powersaving.
Also when an arch wants to prevent a CPU from entering dynticks idle mode, it typically
use arch_needs_cpu(). May be that could fit for you as well?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/