Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry

[Jacob Pan]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:06:30 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Which one? That is, I cannot find a idle_cpu() call from
> tick_nohz_irq_exit().
it is  tick_irq_exit(void), i will not call tick_nohz_irq_exit() if
!idle_cpu()

please see my other email for complete story. pasted below.

I am not sure what is the best solution. It seems I can add additional
checks like this.
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3520,9 +3520,14 @@ int idle_cpu(int cpu)
        if (rq->curr != rq->idle)
                return 0;
 
-       if (rq->nr_running)
-               return 0;
-
+       if (rq->nr_running) {
+               /* if cfs_rq is in forced idle, nr_running could be
nonzero but still in idle */
+               if ((rq->nr_running != rq->cfs.h_nr_running) ||
+                       cfs_rq_runnable(&rq->cfs))
+                       return 0;
+       }

To recap the problem statement.
1. When entering idle loop tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() checks if the
next timer interrupt is exactly one tick away. if so, it will not stop
it to avoid threshing timer disable and enable.
2. so it relies on the next round tick_nohz_irq_exit() to have another
chance to stop the tick
3. with idle injection rq->nr_running could be nonzero when in idle
4. tick_nohz_irq_exit() will not be called if !idle_cpu()

However, idle_cpu() is used by many other callers, e.g. load balance.
Do we want to consider forced idle in those cases? Or we can forgo this
case and ignore it?

--
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/