Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle
From: Daniel Lezcano
Date: Fri Nov 07 2014 - 04:41:50 EST
On 11/07/2014 05:29 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/06/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req, we
want full reactivity on the system, not enter an idle state with all the
computation in the menu governor, no ?
I agree this patch changes the behavior on PowerPC, but only if the
latency_req is set to zero. I don't think we are worried about power
saving when setting this value.
Couldn't the patch accepted as it is for the sake of consistency on all
the platform and then we optimize cleanly for the special latency zero
case ?
Alright Daniel, you can go ahead. I was thinking this patch through and
now realize that, like you point out the logic will only get complicated
with all the additional hack.
But would it be possible to add the weak arch_cpu_idle_loop() call for
the cases where latency requirement is 0 like you had suggested earlier
? This would ensure the polling logic does not break on PowerPC and we
don't bother the governor even. I will add the function in the core
PowerPC code. If arch does not define this function it will fall back to
cpu_idle_loop(). Fair enough?
Yes, sounds good.
I will add the weak function as the first patch in the series.
Thanks for your reviews.
-- Daniel
--
<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/