RE: [PATCH v4 7/8] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with smp_cond_load_relaxed

From: Tomohiro Misono (Fujitsu)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2024 - 04:18:49 EST


Hi,
> Subject: [PATCH v4 7/8] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with smp_cond_load_relaxed
>
> cpu_relax on ARM64 does a simple "yield". Thus we replace it with
> smp_cond_load_relaxed which basically does a "wfe".
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> index 9b6d90a72601..1e45be906e72 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
> {
> + unsigned long ret;
> u64 time_start;
>
> time_start = local_clock_noinstr();
> @@ -26,12 +27,16 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>
> limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
>
> - while (!need_resched()) {
> - cpu_relax();
> - if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
> - continue;
> -
> + for (;;) {
> loop_count = 0;
> +
> + ret = smp_cond_load_relaxed(&current_thread_info()->flags,
> + VAL & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED ||
> + loop_count++ >= POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT);
> +
> + if (!(ret & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED))
> + break;

Should this be "if (ret & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED) since we want to break here
if the flag is set, or am I misunderstood?

Regards,
Tomohiro

> +
> if (local_clock_noinstr() - time_start > limit) {
> dev->poll_time_limit = true;
> break;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel