Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play_dead()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Nov 14 2024 - 07:18:00 EST
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 5:27 PM Wysocki, Rafael J
> <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/13/2024 5:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 05:11:38PM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > >
> > >> How about something like this (completely untested)
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------x8----------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > >> index f3ffd0a3a012..bd611771fa6c 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > >> @@ -215,6 +215,24 @@ void __cpuidle acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(struct acpi_processor_cx *cx)
> > >> }
> > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter);
> > >>
> > >> +static int acpi_processor_ffh_play_dead(struct acpi_processor_cx *cx)
> > >> +{
> > >> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > >> + struct cstate_entry *percpu_entry;
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * This is ugly. But AMD processors don't prefer MWAIT based
> > >> + * C-states when processors are offlined.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD ||
> > >> + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
> > >> + return -ENODEV;
> > > Are there AMD systems with FFh idle states at all?
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> >
> > > Also, I don't think this works right, the loop in cpuidle_play_dead()
> > > will terminate on this, and not try a shallower state which might have
> > > IO/HLT on.
> >
> > I think you are right.
>
> AFAICS, cpuidle_play_dead() needs to be reworked to not bail out after
> receiving an error from :play_dead() for one state, but only after all
> of them have failed.
That and ideally we remove that whole ACPI_STATE_C[123] filter on
setting enter_dead. I don't see how that makes sense.