Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] idle: move the cpuidle entry point to the genericidle loop

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 01/30/2014 06:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>
> > Hi Nicolas,
> >
> > On 01/30/2014 02:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > > In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a better
> > > > proximity in the core code with what cpuidle is doing and not delegate
> > > > such interaction to arch code.
> > > >
> > > > Architectures implementing arch_cpu_idle() should simply enter
> > > > a cheap idle mode in the absence of a proper cpuidle driver.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > As mentioned in my reply to Olof's comment on patch #5/6, here's a new
> > > version of this patch adding the safety local_irq_enable() to the core
> > > code.
> > >
> > > ----- >8
> > >
> > > From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: idle: move the cpuidle entry point to the generic idle loop
> > >
> > > In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a better
> > > proximity in the core code with what cpuidle is doing and not delegate
> > > such interaction to arch code.
> > >
> > > Architectures implementing arch_cpu_idle() should simply enter
> > > a cheap idle mode in the absence of a proper cpuidle driver.
> > >
> > > In both cases i.e. whether it is a cpuidle driver or the default
> > > arch_cpu_idle(), the calling convention expects IRQs to be disabled
> > > on entry and enabled on exit. There is a warning in place already but
> > > let's add a forced IRQ enable here as well.  This will allow for
> > > removing the forced IRQ enable some implementations do locally and
> >
> > Why would this patch allow for removing the forced IRQ enable that are
> > being done on some archs in arch_cpu_idle()? Isn't this patch expecting
> > the default arch_cpu_idle() to have re-enabled the interrupts after
> > exiting from the default idle state? Its supposed to only catch faulty
> > cpuidle drivers that haven't enabled IRQs on exit from idle state but
> > are expected to have done so, isn't it?
>
> Exact.  However x86 currently does this:
>
> 	if (cpuidle_idle_call())
> 	        x86_idle();
> 	else
> 	        local_irq_enable();
>
> So whenever cpuidle_idle_call() is successful then IRQs are
> unconditionally enabled whether or not the underlying cpuidle driver has
> properly done it or not.  And the reason is that some of the x86 cpuidle
> do fail to enable IRQs before returning.
>
> So the idea is to get rid of this unconditional IRQ enabling and let the
> core issue a warning instead (as well as enabling IRQs to allow the
> system to run).

But what I don't get with your comment is the local_irq_enable is done 
from the cpuidle common framework in 'cpuidle_enter_state' it is not 
done from the arch specific backend cpuidle driver.

So the code above could be:

	if (cpuidle_idle_call())
		x86_idle();

without the else section, this local_irq_enable is pointless. Or may be 
I missed something ?


--
 <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/