Re: [PATCH] idle/tick-broadcast: Exit cpu idle poll loop when cleared from tick_broadcast_force_mask

[Preeti U Murthy]

On 01/21/2015 03:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 01/20/2015 04:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>> An idle cpu enters cpu_idle_poll() if it is set in the tick_broadcast_force_mask.
>>>> This is so that it does not incur the overhead of entering idle states when it is expected
>>>> to be woken up anytime then through a broadcast IPI. The condition that forces an exit out
>>>> of the idle polling is the check on setting of the TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag for the idle thread.
>>>>
>>>> When the broadcast IPI does arrive, it is not guarenteed that the handler sets the
>>>> TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag. Hence although the cpu is cleared in the tick_broadcast_force_mask,
>>>> it continues to loop in cpu_idle_poll unnecessarily wasting power. Hence exit the idle
>>>> poll loop if the tick_broadcast_force_mask gets cleared and enter idle states.
>>>>
>>>> Of course if the cpu has entered cpu_idle_poll() on being asked to poll explicitly,
>>>> it continues to poll till it is asked to reschedule.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  kernel/sched/idle.c |    3 ++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>>> index c47fce7..aaf1c1d 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>>> @@ -47,7 +47,8 @@ static inline int cpu_idle_poll(void)
>>>>  	rcu_idle_enter();
>>>>  	trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(0, smp_processor_id());
>>>>  	local_irq_enable();
>>>> -	while (!tif_need_resched())
>>>> +	while (!tif_need_resched() &&
>>>> +		(cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()))
>>>
>>> You explain the tick_check_broadcast_expired() bit, but what about the
>>> cpu_idle_force_poll part?
>>
>> The last few lines which say "Of course if the cpu has entered
>> cpu_idle_poll() on being asked to poll explicitly, it continues to poll
>> till it is asked to reschedule" explains the cpu_idle_force_poll part.
> 
> Well, I read it more than once and did not figure it out.
> 
> The paragraph describes some behaviour. Now I know it's the behaviour
> before the patch. So maybe something like this:
> 
>   cpu_idle_poll() is entered when cpu_idle_force_poll is set or
>   tick_check_broadcast_expired() returns true. The exit condition from
>   cpu_idle_poll() is tif_need_resched().
> 
>   But this does not take into account that cpu_idle_force_poll and
>   tick_check_broadcast_expired() can change without setting the
>   resched flag. So a cpu can be caught in cpu_idle_poll() needlessly
>   and thereby wasting power.
> 
>   Add an explicit check for cpu_idle_force_poll and
>   tick_check_broadcast_expired() to the exit condition of
>   cpu_idle_poll() to avoid this.
> 
> This explains the technical issue without confusing people with IPIs
> and other completely irrelevant information. Hmm?

Yep, much simpler, thanks! I will send out the next version with this
changelog.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
> 

--
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/