Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] idle: Move idle conditions in cpuidle_idle main function

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 02/24/2014 03:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:55:50PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > @@ -136,25 +155,8 @@ static void cpu_idle_loop(void)
> >   			local_irq_disable();
> >   			arch_cpu_idle_enter();
> >
> > -			/*
> > -			 * In poll mode we reenable interrupts and spin.
> > -			 *
> > -			 * Also if we detected in the wakeup from idle
> > -			 * path that the tick 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()) {
> > -				cpu_idle_poll();
> > -			} else {
> > -				if (!current_clr_polling_and_test()) {
> > -					cpuidle_idle_call();
> > -				} else {
> > -					local_irq_enable();
> > -				}
> > -				__current_set_polling();
> > -			}
> > +			cpuidle_idle_call();
> > +
>
> Yeah, not liking that much; you can make it look like:
>
> 	if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired())
> 		cpu_idle_poll();
> 	else
> 		cpu_idle_call();
>
> Though. That keeps the polling case separate from the actual idle
> function.

Yes, you are right, it looks better.

> And when you do that; you can also push down the
> current_clr_polling_and_test() muck so it doesn't cover the actual
> cpuidle policy code.

I am not getting it. Where do you suggest to move it ?

--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/